Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
On 15.01.2015 17:57, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: ...I'll go and kill that cron job then. Woot!... Can you also write a note at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html to indicate that the service is discontinued? People might have bookmarked it. Ack, done. -- Brane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: ...I'll go and kill that cron job then. Woot!... Can you also write a note at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html to indicate that the service is discontinued? People might have bookmarked it. Thanks again for creating this! -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
On 15.01.2015 15:08, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:37 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: I just looked at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html, and I do understand that votes can be open for an extended period of time, but more than 100 days seems excessive: Back in June 2014, I suggested that this service be retired: http://s.apache.org/22q No one objected, and I removed the links to it. I don't think we should bring it back now; as Brane notes, keeping it up-to-date requires significant ongoing fiddling. Thanks once again to those who helped maintain it. It helped to prod changes which brought the Incubator out of perpetual crisis. You're welcome. I'll go and kill that cron job then. Woot! -- Brane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
On 15.01.2015 15:06, jan i wrote: On 15 January 2015 at 14:58, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 15.01.2015 14:45, Dave wrote: This vote: RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days was cancelled in an email message titled [VOTE][CANCELLED] Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) - CORRECTION The problem here is that the vote tally script does not expect people to fiddle with the subject line other than to add a [RESULT] or [CANCEL] or [CANCELLED] tag. In the past, I've found quite a few result or cancellation messages that also modify the rest of the subject line, or even start a completely new thread. Every now and then I go through the script's database and fix up results, but ... I'd really have expected people to feel less need to fiddle with subject lines. :) (At one point I tried following in-reply-to headers ... what a mess, mail clients these days really have trouble following 20-year-old RFCs.) Does the program have any other method to cancel votes than making an email ? (would be kind of nice of IPMC could mark votes like the one from Usergrid, without extra emails) Yeah, it would be nice; and the answer is, not yet. It's just a cron job that generates static HTML, running off my account on minotaur. At one time I had this utopian plan for changing the whole thing into a nice webapp, but ... heh. Went the way of all other Utopias. And of course, some votes never get a proper resolution mail sent out. Those are the ones we need to catch. Yup. That was the point of trying to automate the whole thing. -- Brane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:17 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Seems the links jumped back in again, I came to it from voting status on our front page. Don't know how to remove it from there. We need to remove this line: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/trunk/content/stylesheets/project.xml?revision=1555979view=markup#l46 On commit, the CMS will fire the Incubator's site generation routines, propagating out the result to all the files that contain that component. Feel free to perform that commit, or I can take care of it later. I don't want it back, but if retired the link should go too. I misremembered. In an earlier cleanup (January 2014), I had moved the link to a less prominent location on the page. OK, this time it will really go. But I'm glad I got to thank people again. :) Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Clarification on adding a new PPMC member
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: General principle: inviting a PPMC member to join a podling should use exactly the same routine as inviting a PMC member to join a TLP, except that the entity being notified is the IPMC rather than the Board. Makes sense. I'll adjust the instructions so they're more clear.
Clarification on adding a new PPMC member
Recent edits to [1] have made the process of adding a PPMC member confusing. Previously, the instructions said to 1) forward the initial vote message to the IPMC, 2) invite the member upon a successful vote, and 3) send a note to the IPMC announcing the new member with the message ID of the vote result. Now the page also says there is a 72 hour waiting period before you can invite the member. This doesn't make sense, because the instructions say to send the vote result to the IPMC _after_ inviting the member. Is the addition of the waiting period correct? If so, we should change the instructions to have a clear ordering: forward initial vote, forward vote result, wait 72 hours, invite the new member. I'll be happy to make the changes to the instructions, but I want to make sure I'm clarifying them correctly. [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
Re: Clarification on adding a new PPMC member
General principle: inviting a PPMC member to join a podling should use exactly the same routine as inviting a PMC member to join a TLP, except that the entity being notified is the IPMC rather than the Board. Marvin Humphrey On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Billie Rinaldi bil...@apache.org wrote: Recent edits to [1] have made the process of adding a PPMC member confusing. Previously, the instructions said to 1) forward the initial vote message to the IPMC, 2) invite the member upon a successful vote, and 3) send a note to the IPMC announcing the new member with the message ID of the vote result. Now the page also says there is a 72 hour waiting period before you can invite the member. This doesn't make sense, because the instructions say to send the vote result to the IPMC _after_ inviting the member. Is the addition of the waiting period correct? If so, we should change the instructions to have a clear ordering: forward initial vote, forward vote result, wait 72 hours, invite the new member. I'll be happy to make the changes to the instructions, but I want to make sure I'm clarifying them correctly. [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Clarification on adding a new PPMC member
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:16 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, January 15, 2015, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: General principle: inviting a PPMC member to join a podling should use exactly the same routine as inviting a PMC member to join a TLP, except that the entity being notified is the IPMC rather than the Board. But a TLP does not advice board when voting begins a podling must with current rules. The rules for a TLP are defined in a Board resolution from June 2013. Here's the relevant passage, which is a little quirky: http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2013/board_minutes_2013_06_19.txt 1) A notice of the appointment shall be delivered to the Board's mailing list and the PMC's private discussion list, as recorded within the Foundation's mailing list archives, at least 72 hours prior to the effective date of the appointment, where said notice may be sent by the chairman, or by any existing member of the PMC if it contains a link to a formal decision by the PMC approving of the appointment; The quirk is, if the PMC Chair sends the NOTICE email, it doesn't need to contain a link to the VOTE result, whereas if any other PMC member sends it they need a link. This means that for a TLP at least, if the PMC Chair sends the NOTICE email, they don't have to wait for the VOTE to conclude, while anybody else has to. OK, whatever[1]. PPMCs don't have Chairs, so the Incubator can't mirror the TLP procedure exactly. But IMO the Incubator should get as close as possible so that podlings don't have to relearn much when they graduate. Personally, I'd like to see the Incubator drop the initial notification that a vote is underway, leaving only the 72-hour NOTICE to the IPMC referencing the vote result. Marvin Humphrey [1] I'd cite this as an example of how committing to concrete language can introduce unexpected complexity, as discussed in recent threads (http://s.apache.org/s7v) -- and thus an illustration of why minimizing absolute requirements is important. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is The Apache Way?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: My assumption was that 'setting binding policy on projects' was something specifically excluded from my level of authority, as an officer derived from the Office of the President. If that is not the case, I am happy to define and publish such things within the realm of infrastructure. Hi David, Since it's seems that you're willing and we have good rapport, I think it might work well to kick things off with Infra. Here's my provisional agenda: 1. Hash out DRAFT policies with Infra. 2. Work with Legal Affairs to complete the release policy codification initiative. 3. Review the top level Project Requirements document. 4. ... I'm presently contemplating that Infrastructure would curate two policies: * Infrastructure Policy * Release Distribution Policy Infrastructure Policy would cover topics such as canonical repository location and usage of external services, as you and Doug discussed upthread. Release Distribution Policy would cover technical details of releasing, such as cryptographic signature specs, responsibility for keeping dist dirs tidy, and so on. These aspects are covered (incompletely) in the present Releases Policy (http://www.apache.org/dev/release), but are omitted from the clarified release policy which Legal Affairs is being asked to take ownership of (https://github.com/rectang/asfrelease) because they are outside Legal's domain. If that sounds workable, let me mull things over for a bit, then I plan to show up on infrastructure-dev@apache with some sketches. The content is ultimately your call and I don't expect to get all the details right, but before discussions commence in earnest, I'd like to mess around with language and high-level organization to seek out approaches that are as minimalist and flexible as possible. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Alex B abezzu...@nflabs.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: There are currently 36 podlings undergoing incubation. One podling joined us this month (Corinthia). It might be a typo here as AFAIK there are two new podlings this moth: *Corinthia* 2014-12-08 and *Zeppelin* 2014-12-23 Good catch. Somehow I thought it was reported in December, but you're right -- of course it wasn't. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Clarification on adding a new PPMC member
On Thursday, January 15, 2015, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: General principle: inviting a PPMC member to join a podling should use exactly the same routine as inviting a PMC member to join a TLP, except that the entity being notified is the IPMC rather than the Board. But a TLP does not advice board when voting begins a podling must with current rules. rgds jan i Marvin Humphrey On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Billie Rinaldi bil...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: Recent edits to [1] have made the process of adding a PPMC member confusing. Previously, the instructions said to 1) forward the initial vote message to the IPMC, 2) invite the member upon a successful vote, and 3) send a note to the IPMC announcing the new member with the message ID of the vote result. Now the page also says there is a 72 hour waiting period before you can invite the member. This doesn't make sense, because the instructions say to send the vote result to the IPMC _after_ inviting the member. Is the addition of the waiting period correct? If so, we should change the instructions to have a clear ordering: forward initial vote, forward vote result, wait 72 hours, invite the new member. I'll be happy to make the changes to the instructions, but I want to make sure I'm clarifying them correctly. [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org javascript:; -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
RE: What is The Apache Way?
That's already in progress as part of this year's budget planning :-) Of course this is distinct from policy. For example: Should the policy say projects are limited to items on the infra core services list? Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Shane Curcurumailto:a...@shanecurcuru.org Sent: 1/15/2015 4:55 PM To: Marvin Humphreymailto:mar...@rectangular.com; general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: What is The Apache Way? Dear David: I would *love* to see you propose whatever set of requirements that ASF infra as a service sees as appropriate for our projects, given our history, budget, and a view to ensuring reliable service for the future. Then, include a clear list of bullet points which should go into the Project Requirements document. Then president@/board@ can decide what to officially stamp as hard policy vs. recommended suggestions, put them in Project Requirements, and take the *DRAFT* off. But everything happens better when there's a concrete plan up front, and I'm confident your infra team will come up with the right requirements as relates to infra for projects. - Shane On 1/15/15 6:51 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: My assumption was that 'setting binding policy on projects' was something specifically excluded from my level of authority, as an officer derived from the Office of the President. If that is not the case, I am happy to define and publish such things within the realm of infrastructure. Hi David, Since it's seems that you're willing and we have good rapport, I think it might work well to kick things off with Infra. Here's my provisional agenda: 1. Hash out DRAFT policies with Infra. 2. Work with Legal Affairs to complete the release policy codification initiative. 3. Review the top level Project Requirements document. 4. ... I'm presently contemplating that Infrastructure would curate two policies: * Infrastructure Policy * Release Distribution Policy Infrastructure Policy would cover topics such as canonical repository location and usage of external services, as you and Doug discussed upthread. Release Distribution Policy would cover technical details of releasing, such as cryptographic signature specs, responsibility for keeping dist dirs tidy, and so on. These aspects are covered (incompletely) in the present Releases Policy (http://www.apache.org/dev/release), but are omitted from the clarified release policy which Legal Affairs is being asked to take ownership of (https://github.com/rectang/asfrelease) because they are outside Legal's domain. If that sounds workable, let me mull things over for a bit, then I plan to show up on infrastructure-dev@apache with some sketches. The content is ultimately your call and I don't expect to get all the details right, but before discussions commence in earnest, I'd like to mess around with language and high-level organization to seek out approaches that are as minimalist and flexible as possible. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is The Apache Way?
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: My assumption was that 'setting binding policy on projects' was something specifically excluded from my level of authority, as an officer derived from the Office of the President. If that is not the case, I am happy to define and publish such things within the realm of infrastructure. Hi David, Since it's seems that you're willing and we have good rapport, I think it might work well to kick things off with Infra. Here's my provisional agenda: 1. Hash out DRAFT policies with Infra. 2. Work with Legal Affairs to complete the release policy codification initiative. 3. Review the top level Project Requirements document. 4. ... I'm presently contemplating that Infrastructure would curate two policies: * Infrastructure Policy * Release Distribution Policy Infrastructure Policy would cover topics such as canonical repository location and usage of external services, as you and Doug discussed upthread. Release Distribution Policy would cover technical details of releasing, such as cryptographic signature specs, responsibility for keeping dist dirs tidy, and so on. These aspects are covered (incompletely) in the present Releases Policy (http://www.apache.org/dev/release), but are omitted from the clarified release policy which Legal Affairs is being asked to take ownership of (https://github.com/rectang/asfrelease) because they are outside Legal's domain. If that sounds workable, let me mull things over for a bit, then I plan to show up on infrastructure-dev@apache with some sketches. The content is ultimately your call and I don't expect to get all the details right, but before discussions commence in earnest, I'd like to mess around with language and high-level organization to seek out approaches that are as minimalist and flexible as possible. Marvin Humphrey Sounds good; I look forward to this coming to fruition. --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Please give LeftyLeverenz wiki edit privilege
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Please grant LeftyLeverenz write access to the wiki so I can make a few changes to the Apache Project Maturity Model https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel. done -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Please give LeftyLeverenz wiki edit privilege
Please grant LeftyLeverenz write access to the wiki so I can make a few changes to the Apache Project Maturity Model https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel. Thank you. -- Lefty Leverenz
Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
This vote: RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days was cancelled in an email message titled [VOTE][CANCELLED] Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) - CORRECTION - Dave On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:37 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi I just looked at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html, and I do understand that votes can be open for an extended period of time, but more than 100 days seems excessive: Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release 2014–10–20 2014–10–05 102 days Accept Ignite into the Apache Incubator 2014–10–01 2014–10–01 106 days Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days Release Apache Flink 0.6-incubating 2014–08–22 2014–08–18 150 days Release BatchEE 0-2-incubating 2014–08–10 2014–08–10 158 days Release Apache DeviceMap BrowserMap version 1.4.1 2014–07–30 2014–07–25 174 days Release of Apache MRQL 0.9.2 incubating (RC2)) 2014–06–26 2014–06–25 204 days Graduate Apache Celix as Top Level Project 2014–06–23 2014–06–19 210 days Apache Slider 0.30-incubating RC0 2014–06–02 2014–06–02 227 days Could I politely ask the different projects to have a look if these votes still are active, or alternatively close/cancel them. thanks in advance rgds jan i.
Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
On 15 January 2015 at 14:58, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 15.01.2015 14:45, Dave wrote: This vote: RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days was cancelled in an email message titled [VOTE][CANCELLED] Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) - CORRECTION The problem here is that the vote tally script does not expect people to fiddle with the subject line other than to add a [RESULT] or [CANCEL] or [CANCELLED] tag. In the past, I've found quite a few result or cancellation messages that also modify the rest of the subject line, or even start a completely new thread. Every now and then I go through the script's database and fix up results, but ... I'd really have expected people to feel less need to fiddle with subject lines. :) (At one point I tried following in-reply-to headers ... what a mess, mail clients these days really have trouble following 20-year-old RFCs.) Does the program have any other method to cancel votes than making an email ? (would be kind of nice of IPMC could mark votes like the one from Usergrid, without extra emails) And of course, some votes never get a proper resolution mail sent out. Those are the ones we need to catch. rgds jan i -- Brane On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:37 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi I just looked at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html, and I do understand that votes can be open for an extended period of time, but more than 100 days seems excessive: Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release 2014–10–20 2014–10–05 102 days Accept Ignite into the Apache Incubator 2014–10–01 2014–10–01 106 days Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days Release Apache Flink 0.6-incubating 2014–08–22 2014–08–18 150 days Release BatchEE 0-2-incubating 2014–08–10 2014–08–10 158 days Release Apache DeviceMap BrowserMap version 1.4.1 2014–07–30 2014–07–25 174 days Release of Apache MRQL 0.9.2 incubating (RC2)) 2014–06–26 2014–06–25 204 days Graduate Apache Celix as Top Level Project 2014–06–23 2014–06–19 210 days Apache Slider 0.30-incubating RC0 2014–06–02 2014–06–02 227 days Could I politely ask the different projects to have a look if these votes still are active, or alternatively close/cancel them. thanks in advance rgds jan i. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:37 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: I just looked at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html, and I do understand that votes can be open for an extended period of time, but more than 100 days seems excessive: Back in June 2014, I suggested that this service be retired: http://s.apache.org/22q No one objected, and I removed the links to it. I don't think we should bring it back now; as Brane notes, keeping it up-to-date requires significant ongoing fiddling. Thanks once again to those who helped maintain it. It helped to prod changes which brought the Incubator out of perpetual crisis. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
Hi I just looked at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html, and I do understand that votes can be open for an extended period of time, but more than 100 days seems excessive: Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release 2014–10–20 2014–10–05 102 days Accept Ignite into the Apache Incubator 2014–10–01 2014–10–01 106 days Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days Release Apache Flink 0.6-incubating 2014–08–22 2014–08–18 150 days Release BatchEE 0-2-incubating 2014–08–10 2014–08–10 158 days Release Apache DeviceMap BrowserMap version 1.4.1 2014–07–30 2014–07–25 174 days Release of Apache MRQL 0.9.2 incubating (RC2)) 2014–06–26 2014–06–25 204 days Graduate Apache Celix as Top Level Project 2014–06–23 2014–06–19 210 days Apache Slider 0.30-incubating RC0 2014–06–02 2014–06–02 227 days Could I politely ask the different projects to have a look if these votes still are active, or alternatively close/cancel them. thanks in advance rgds jan i.
Re: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: There are currently 36 podlings undergoing incubation. One podling joined us this month (Corinthia). It might be a typo here as AFAIK there are two new podlings this moth: *Corinthia* 2014-12-08 and *Zeppelin* 2014-12-23 -- Kind regards, Alexander.
Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
On 15.01.2015 14:45, Dave wrote: This vote: RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days was cancelled in an email message titled [VOTE][CANCELLED] Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) - CORRECTION The problem here is that the vote tally script does not expect people to fiddle with the subject line other than to add a [RESULT] or [CANCEL] or [CANCELLED] tag. In the past, I've found quite a few result or cancellation messages that also modify the rest of the subject line, or even start a completely new thread. Every now and then I go through the script's database and fix up results, but ... I'd really have expected people to feel less need to fiddle with subject lines. :) (At one point I tried following in-reply-to headers ... what a mess, mail clients these days really have trouble following 20-year-old RFCs.) And of course, some votes never get a proper resolution mail sent out. -- Brane On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:37 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi I just looked at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html, and I do understand that votes can be open for an extended period of time, but more than 100 days seems excessive: Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release 2014–10–20 2014–10–05 102 days Accept Ignite into the Apache Incubator 2014–10–01 2014–10–01 106 days Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days Release Apache Flink 0.6-incubating 2014–08–22 2014–08–18 150 days Release BatchEE 0-2-incubating 2014–08–10 2014–08–10 158 days Release Apache DeviceMap BrowserMap version 1.4.1 2014–07–30 2014–07–25 174 days Release of Apache MRQL 0.9.2 incubating (RC2)) 2014–06–26 2014–06–25 204 days Graduate Apache Celix as Top Level Project 2014–06–23 2014–06–19 210 days Apache Slider 0.30-incubating RC0 2014–06–02 2014–06–02 227 days Could I politely ask the different projects to have a look if these votes still are active, or alternatively close/cancel them. thanks in advance rgds jan i. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??
On Thursday, January 15, 2015, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:37 AM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: I just looked at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html, and I do understand that votes can be open for an extended period of time, but more than 100 days seems excessive: Back in June 2014, I suggested that this service be retired: http://s.apache.org/22q No one objected, and I removed the links to it. I don't think we should bring it back now; as Brane notes, keeping it up-to-date requires significant ongoing fiddling. Seems the links jumped back in again, I came to it from voting status on our front page. Don't know how to remove it from there. I don't want it back, but if retired the link should go too. rgds jan i Thanks once again to those who helped maintain it. It helped to prod changes which brought the Incubator out of perpetual crisis. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org javascript:; -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: What is The Apache Way?
Dear David: I would *love* to see you propose whatever set of requirements that ASF infra as a service sees as appropriate for our projects, given our history, budget, and a view to ensuring reliable service for the future. Then, include a clear list of bullet points which should go into the Project Requirements document. Then president@/board@ can decide what to officially stamp as hard policy vs. recommended suggestions, put them in Project Requirements, and take the *DRAFT* off. But everything happens better when there's a concrete plan up front, and I'm confident your infra team will come up with the right requirements as relates to infra for projects. - Shane On 1/15/15 6:51 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: My assumption was that 'setting binding policy on projects' was something specifically excluded from my level of authority, as an officer derived from the Office of the President. If that is not the case, I am happy to define and publish such things within the realm of infrastructure. Hi David, Since it's seems that you're willing and we have good rapport, I think it might work well to kick things off with Infra. Here's my provisional agenda: 1. Hash out DRAFT policies with Infra. 2. Work with Legal Affairs to complete the release policy codification initiative. 3. Review the top level Project Requirements document. 4. ... I'm presently contemplating that Infrastructure would curate two policies: * Infrastructure Policy * Release Distribution Policy Infrastructure Policy would cover topics such as canonical repository location and usage of external services, as you and Doug discussed upthread. Release Distribution Policy would cover technical details of releasing, such as cryptographic signature specs, responsibility for keeping dist dirs tidy, and so on. These aspects are covered (incompletely) in the present Releases Policy (http://www.apache.org/dev/release), but are omitted from the clarified release policy which Legal Affairs is being asked to take ownership of (https://github.com/rectang/asfrelease) because they are outside Legal's domain. If that sounds workable, let me mull things over for a bit, then I plan to show up on infrastructure-dev@apache with some sketches. The content is ultimately your call and I don't expect to get all the details right, but before discussions commence in earnest, I'd like to mess around with language and high-level organization to seek out approaches that are as minimalist and flexible as possible. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
