Re: [VOTE] [UPDATE] CeltiXfire Project Proposal
On 7/21/06, Dan Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 21:28 -0400, Dan Diephouse wrote: snip While I value your feedback and input, if you don't have enough time, I don't understand why you should be a mentor. We have 4 mentors already, and from a logistical standpoint I find it hard to keep up with. Each mentor tends to have a different opinion or different input. While more input can be great, it can easily get to the point of overload and impedes Getting Stuff Done. :-) The Getting Stuff Done part in the project is restricted to the technical part - mentoring is not about getting stuff done. I know a thing or two about the technical area Dan and I darned well will have input on it. Do you see that as a problem too? As I said in the previous message, I value your input. My comment about the mentors and lots of opinions was more in reference to non technical things, like the art of writing an Apache Incubator proposal. i think that's a misunderstanding about the roles and process (which is understandable since the documentation isn't great). during the entry process, the Champion (not the Mentors who are not even formally appointed at this stage), the proposers and the incubator PMC are the main protagonists. proposers have to understand that there are several reasons why a variety of opinions are going to be presented and why there's going to be a lot of discussion. there is no hiding that the democratic nature of the process means lots of talk and not much action. opinions are informed by debate. there's no hiding that there are significant differences of opinion amongst the membership concerning incubation. so more more discussion of each particular case is required than if consensus had been achieved. there's no hiding that the state of the documentation is poor. so currently on-list explanation is necessary. only once a proposal has been formally accepted for incubation by the PMC do people start to being work with their Mentor hats on. sources of friction during incubation are typically stuff like lack of quorum (too few binding votes) and waiting for answers to questions about Apache. so more Mentors should mean less overhead, not more. in terms of oversight, the PMC would be happier with more mentors and Mentors too. it's a lot of hassle all round if lots of PMCers have to jump in and start throwing their weight around in a podling. more mentors and Mentors should mean that the PMC can stay at arms length which means a lot less overhead. - robert
[VOTE] [RESULTS] CeltiXfire Project Proposal
Hi, About 10 days has elapsed so I'm going to close the vote on CeltixFire and say it's been accepted by the PMC Incubator, the binding votes are below and I've included the voting thread for reference. Jason van Zyl James Strachan Peter Royal Alex Karasulu Brett Porter Martin van den Bemt Robert Burrell Donkin Sanjiva Weerawarana Henri Yandell Cliff Schmidt Noel Bergman http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/ 200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (that's the initial messsage, can't figure out how to get a link for a thread) Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DOAP files for Podling
On 18 Jul 06, at 12:04 PM 18 Jul 06, Jason van Zyl wrote: Hi, I setup a JIRA project if anyone finds any glitches in the output: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MDOAP I've created an official release of the plugin and there is some documentation now: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-doap-plugin/ Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] [RESULTS] CeltiXfire Project Proposal
Hi, Dim's pointed me at the thread in theaimsgroup archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11527733822r=1w=2 That might be easier to follow. Thanks, On 22 Jul 06, at 8:41 AM 22 Jul 06, Jason van Zyl wrote: Hi, About 10 days has elapsed so I'm going to close the vote on CeltixFire and say it's been accepted by the PMC Incubator, the binding votes are below and I've included the voting thread for reference. Jason van Zyl James Strachan Peter Royal Alex Karasulu Brett Porter Martin van den Bemt Robert Burrell Donkin Sanjiva Weerawarana Henri Yandell Cliff Schmidt Noel Bergman http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/ 200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (that's the initial messsage, can't figure out how to get a link for a thread) Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] [RESULTS] CeltiXfire Project Proposal
On 7/22/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/ 200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (that's the initial messsage, can't figure out how to get a link for a thread) Um, click on the right-arrow/chevron next to the word Thread? -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] [RESULTS] CeltiXfire Project Proposal
On 22 Jul 06, at 4:21 PM 22 Jul 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 7/22/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/ 200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (that's the initial messsage, can't figure out how to get a link for a thread) Um, click on the right-arrow/chevron next to the word Thread? -- justin Sorry, don't see it. What's the URL I can click on to show the thread? Using the link I think I can use always take me to all the threads which is this: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/ 200607.mbox/browser - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: piling on
On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient. Well, no, the expectation is clearly being set that anyone can add themselves to the proposal on the wiki, and I for one vote to approve a proposal based on both the wiki and the emailed content. If the emailed version is different from the wiki, then that will get a -1 from me simply because they are inconsistent. ATM the proposal on the wiki is not normative. the sponsor votes on the proposal as submitted to the list. this proposal contains a number of names proposed as initial committers. the sponsor votes to accept the proposal submitted including the list of initial committers. so, the list of committers is specified by the proposer and approved by the sponsor. In theory, yes, In practice, no. A proposer should not be placed in the position of fighting a wiki-edit war for consistency when it is far easier for us to tell volunteers to be polite by asking the proposer for permission before editing *their* proposal. what other goals would any new policy have in the area? Just a small bit of documentation for people preparing a proposal to inform them that they don't have to accept additional committers during the proposal process. There is a serious social disconnect here: people who are making a proposal are extremely sensitive about pissing us off, and will tend not to reject an added committer even when they know that person is not qualified or is deliberately attempting to steer the project in a direction that it may not want to go. We need the policy to protect new proposals from being unduly influenced by our already established mindset. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
