Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Mark Miller wrote: > > To be clear, we where asking for a [VOTE] and not a [DISCUSS] - we > wanted the vote to ratify our own vote on the subject. There was already > a long discussion on general and the connectors mailing list - tons of > discussion actually. At this point, we have taken that discussion into > consideration and ran a vote. We are now not seeking opinions about how > the results of our vote sucks in someones personal opinion - but a vote > on whether the name chosen by the community can go forward. > > Take that for what it's worth - but we already collected many opinions > over a couple weeks I think. > If that's the case, then I have no objection to you guys (the PPMC) deciding on your own. I have no objection to the name change. It just appeared as though you were asking for our opinion on the name. I think you could have just asked for an acknowledgment from IPMC about the name change. That probably would have sufficed in this case. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On 9/10/10 8:18 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > another small comment: if folks only like to get an opinion, then don't call > a [VOTE] but instead a [DISCUSS] opinion poll. > > Because a vote is a vote is a vote... > > LieGrue, > strub To be clear, we where asking for a [VOTE] and not a [DISCUSS] - we wanted the vote to ratify our own vote on the subject. There was already a long discussion on general and the connectors mailing list - tons of discussion actually. At this point, we have taken that discussion into consideration and ran a vote. We are now not seeking opinions about how the results of our vote sucks in someones personal opinion - but a vote on whether the name chosen by the community can go forward. Take that for what it's worth - but we already collected many opinions over a couple weeks I think. - Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
another small comment: if folks only like to get an opinion, then don't call a [VOTE] but instead a [DISCUSS] opinion poll. Because a vote is a vote is a vote... LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 9/10/10, James Carman wrote: > From: James Carman > Subject: Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 10:53 AM > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Tim > Williams > wrote: > > > > That vote is majority rules, so the IPMC could in > effect overrule the > > project - the "preference/opinion" had already > previously been > > gathered. In any case, I was using that instance to > ask the broader > > question of why we (IPMC) get binding votes on project > matters. It > > seems to me that the healthy thing to do is closer to > the board model > > where we trust projects to do the right thing, ask for > an ack, and > > then only challenge the project on the basis of a > > legal/release/trademark/etc issue. > > > > If we tell the projects that you have to re-vote with > the peanut > > gallery, then the peanut gallery effect is > predictable. Those votes, > > for example, are because they don't *like* the new > name personally, > > not because there's any real problems with it. > > > > Nobody told them to re-vote in this situation. They > took it upon > themselves to ask the IPMC. If you ask for opinions > from people, > you're going to get them. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Tim Williams wrote: > > That vote is majority rules, so the IPMC could in effect overrule the > project - the "preference/opinion" had already previously been > gathered. In any case, I was using that instance to ask the broader > question of why we (IPMC) get binding votes on project matters. It > seems to me that the healthy thing to do is closer to the board model > where we trust projects to do the right thing, ask for an ack, and > then only challenge the project on the basis of a > legal/release/trademark/etc issue. > > If we tell the projects that you have to re-vote with the peanut > gallery, then the peanut gallery effect is predictable. Those votes, > for example, are because they don't *like* the new name personally, > not because there's any real problems with it. > Nobody told them to re-vote in this situation. They took it upon themselves to ask the IPMC. If you ask for opinions from people, you're going to get them. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
For this type of vote, my -1 just means I'm against. It's not a veto. On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > James can I interpret your statement that this would rather be a -0 or -0.1? > Stating that there is no veto but that you personally don't like it ;) > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Thu, 9/9/10, James Carman wrote: > >> From: James Carman >> Subject: Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 7:17 PM >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg >> Stein >> wrote: >> > >> > As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 >> was a veto. If the >> > IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like >> this. If you're >> > only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then >> sure... >> > definitely no problems with that! >> > >> >> The vote was stated to be a majority-rules vote, so my -1 >> was merely >> an indication of my opinion about the name. I >> normally wouldn't get >> into the podling's business (I don't troll their lists), >> but they did >> ask for the votes on the general list. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 14:11, Kalle Korhonen > wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman >>> wrote: >>> I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a >>> slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then >>> fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside >>> the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if >>> they did... >> >> Sure, the podling can change the name and it can be completely dealt >> with an internal matter. However, in this case, the name change was >> put up for a procedural/opinion vote on the incubator general list. As >> such, I might be upset if people are criticized for giving "the wrong >> vote". Most non-positive votes in the thread are non-binding so the >> project can ignore them if they like, but if you don't want the >> opinion, don't put it up for a vote. > > As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 was a veto. If the > IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like this. If you're > only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then sure... > definitely no problems with that! That vote is majority rules, so the IPMC could in effect overrule the project - the "preference/opinion" had already previously been gathered. In any case, I was using that instance to ask the broader question of why we (IPMC) get binding votes on project matters. It seems to me that the healthy thing to do is closer to the board model where we trust projects to do the right thing, ask for an ack, and then only challenge the project on the basis of a legal/release/trademark/etc issue. If we tell the projects that you have to re-vote with the peanut gallery, then the peanut gallery effect is predictable. Those votes, for example, are because they don't *like* the new name personally, not because there's any real problems with it. --tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
James can I interpret your statement that this would rather be a -0 or -0.1? Stating that there is no veto but that you personally don't like it ;) LieGrue, strub --- On Thu, 9/9/10, James Carman wrote: > From: James Carman > Subject: Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 7:17 PM > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg > Stein > wrote: > > > > As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 > was a veto. If the > > IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like > this. If you're > > only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then > sure... > > definitely no problems with that! > > > > The vote was stated to be a majority-rules vote, so my -1 > was merely > an indication of my opinion about the name. I > normally wouldn't get > into the podling's business (I don't troll their lists), > but they did > ask for the votes on the general list. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 was a veto. If the > IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like this. If you're > only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then sure... > definitely no problems with that! > The vote was stated to be a majority-rules vote, so my -1 was merely an indication of my opinion about the name. I normally wouldn't get into the podling's business (I don't troll their lists), but they did ask for the votes on the general list. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 14:11, Kalle Korhonen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman >> wrote: >> I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a >> slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then >> fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside >> the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if >> they did... > > Sure, the podling can change the name and it can be completely dealt > with an internal matter. However, in this case, the name change was > put up for a procedural/opinion vote on the incubator general list. As > such, I might be upset if people are criticized for giving "the wrong > vote". Most non-positive votes in the thread are non-binding so the > project can ignore them if they like, but if you don't want the > opinion, don't put it up for a vote. As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 was a veto. If the IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like this. If you're only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then sure... definitely no problems with that! Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
We obviously want the opinion, but I would claim we are looking for an opinion less on aesthetics and more on whether or not the incubator or the board would have technical objections to this name choice. Would this choice prevent graduation, for instance (in which case a -1 is certainly warranted). Karl On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman > wrote: > > I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a > > slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then > > fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside > > the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if > > they did... > > Sure, the podling can change the name and it can be completely dealt > with an internal matter. However, in this case, the name change was > put up for a procedural/opinion vote on the incubator general list. As > such, I might be upset if people are criticized for giving "the wrong > vote". Most non-positive votes in the thread are non-binding so the > project can ignore them if they like, but if you don't want the > opinion, don't put it up for a vote. > > Kalle > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman wrote: > I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a > slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then > fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside > the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if > they did... Sure, the podling can change the name and it can be completely dealt with an internal matter. However, in this case, the name change was put up for a procedural/opinion vote on the incubator general list. As such, I might be upset if people are criticized for giving "the wrong vote". Most non-positive votes in the thread are non-binding so the project can ignore them if they like, but if you don't want the opinion, don't put it up for a vote. Kalle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
Not only did we ask, we've asked more than once. We're going that extra mile to call a vote to resolve this issue specifically because there seems to be a wide range of opinion as to whether the name is acceptable to the incubator, and by implication, the board. It's quite clear that there's also a wide range of opinion as to whether or not it's a good name or a bad name, but hopefully people who care deeply about the quality of our name choice would find time to subscribe to connectors-dev and vote on issues of this kind. It seems to me that that is the proper forum for discussions about naming aesthetics. Karl On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:54 PM, James Carman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a > > slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then > > fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside > > the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if > > they did... > > They asked. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a > slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then > fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside > the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if > they did... They asked. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Tim Williams wrote: >> Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the >> project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the >> IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to >> think through these things... in other words, the basis for us >> challenging the vote is "trademark concern" rather than "I don't like >> that name, it's too broad"... >> >> ... but I haven't seen a mark concern brought up... > > No, you were saying that the IPMC has no say in this naming matter and > that they should only be concerned with > "release/legal/trademark/etc-type" issues. My point is that the name > is the trademark. So, that would fall under the IPMC's jurisdiction. > That's all I was saying. > > As far as there being a trademark issue with the name, I would think > it would be pretty hard to go after someone for using the term > "connectors framework." That's way too general. I don't really think > there's a mark concern, per se. > > I voiced my opinion because the person opened up the vote and said > only IPMC members have a binding vote. As someone pointed out before, > it's eventually up to the board to decide if the project makes it out > of the incubator with that name. If there are a lot of folks on the > IPMC that think the name stinks, then it's a fair chance that there > will be some on the board who think it stinks too. We defer to the project to know what is best for their product naming. We have tweaked PMC names at least once, but the Board really doesn't want to get into second-guessing what the team thinks is an appropriate name. As long as it doesn't infringe, of course, but even then we expect the project to coordinate with Legal to watch out for this themselves. I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if they did... Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Tim Williams wrote: > Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the > project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the > IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to > think through these things... in other words, the basis for us > challenging the vote is "trademark concern" rather than "I don't like > that name, it's too broad"... > > ... but I haven't seen a mark concern brought up... > No, you were saying that the IPMC has no say in this naming matter and that they should only be concerned with "release/legal/trademark/etc-type" issues. My point is that the name is the trademark. So, that would fall under the IPMC's jurisdiction. That's all I was saying. As far as there being a trademark issue with the name, I would think it would be pretty hard to go after someone for using the term "connectors framework." That's way too general. I don't really think there's a mark concern, per se. I voiced my opinion because the person opened up the vote and said only IPMC members have a binding vote. As someone pointed out before, it's eventually up to the board to decide if the project makes it out of the incubator with that name. If there are a lot of folks on the IPMC that think the name stinks, then it's a fair chance that there will be some on the board who think it stinks too. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
Presumably, the PMC's job is to be the eyes and ears of the Board, so if project is doing something wrong, the PMC should let it know. In this case, the project specifically is asking for guidance from the PMC as to whether the name change is acceptable to the PMC and thus to the ASF, assuming the Board doesn't intervene. We really do not want to go through another name change, so I really would hope all people view this as a "speak now or forever hold your peace" kind of thing and we can move on to the matters of graduation. -Grant On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams wrote: > I'm watching the "renaming" vote thread and I find it odd that folks > are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and > the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything > other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC > should only be relevant/binding when the matter in question is > release/legal/trademark/etc-type issues that could [legally] effect > the foundation. I dunno, this seems purely a project matter to me > (like a logo, code, etc.) - second-guessing a project team on these > sort of subjective things seems counter-productive to grooming > self-sustaining projects to me. So, is this normal - why does the > IPMC really get anything more than an "advising" role in these sorts > of matters (and why is that healthy)? > > Thanks, > --tim > > [1] - > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Incubator+Project+Management+Committee+%28PMC%29 > [2] - > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Incubation+Policy > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:32 AM, James Carman wrote: > name=trademark Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to think through these things... in other words, the basis for us challenging the vote is "trademark concern" rather than "I don't like that name, it's too broad"... ... but I haven't seen a mark concern brought up... --tim > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams wrote: >> I'm watching the "renaming" vote thread and I find it odd that folks >> are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and >> the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything >> other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC >> should only be relevant/binding when the matter in question is >> release/legal/trademark/etc-type issues that could [legally] effect >> the foundation. I dunno, this seems purely a project matter to me >> (like a logo, code, etc.) - second-guessing a project team on these >> sort of subjective things seems counter-productive to grooming >> self-sustaining projects to me. So, is this normal - why does the >> IPMC really get anything more than an "advising" role in these sorts >> of matters (and why is that healthy)? >> >> Thanks, >> --tim >> >> [1] - >> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Incubator+Project+Management+Committee+%28PMC%29 >> [2] - >> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Incubation+Policy >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
name=trademark On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams wrote: > I'm watching the "renaming" vote thread and I find it odd that folks > are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and > the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything > other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC > should only be relevant/binding when the matter in question is > release/legal/trademark/etc-type issues that could [legally] effect > the foundation. I dunno, this seems purely a project matter to me > (like a logo, code, etc.) - second-guessing a project team on these > sort of subjective things seems counter-productive to grooming > self-sustaining projects to me. So, is this normal - why does the > IPMC really get anything more than an "advising" role in these sorts > of matters (and why is that healthy)? > > Thanks, > --tim > > [1] - > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Incubator+Project+Management+Committee+%28PMC%29 > [2] - > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Incubation+Policy > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
