Re: Foundation Voting

Would be more interesting to find out the genesis of that dreck and why it persisted til now. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 18, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Chris Johnson wrote: > > Dave - this was constructive, and well thought. I agree. > > CJ >> On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:27 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >>

Re: KAM is not drunk was Re: Wristbands instead of stickers?

You still haven't addressed the political problem this org faces regarding even innocuous expressions of support like this. The fact is there isn't even unanimity among current board members that there is a problem with the google manifesto or the individuals it damaged. Sent from my iPhone >

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

>> His phrasing might not be what I would use, but his experience seems to >> match mine quite closely. >> >> I also really don't see how a valid statement of long experience is FUD. I >> certainly see a healthy dose of FUD in my day job from competitors and >> Joe&

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

action against a malevolent > company taking control of a project, no matter which voting system you > apply. > > Cheers > Niclas > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Joseph Schaefer < > joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >> The downside to majority

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

Let me clarify that. Each nomination receives comments from other members about their history with the nominee. Not all comments are positive, but those that are are effectively counted as seconds for the nominee. The actual vote is by simple majority however. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 29

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

Yes of course! Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > > I wonder, when voting in new ASF Members is there the discussion on each > nominee to achieve consensus... > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > ORRTIZ.COM > OFBiz based solutio

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

The downside to majority rule when it comes to personnel voting is that it can lead to a situation where a company having a majority on the pmc can increase their majority by voting in additional employees without the minority having any way to provide a check on that exercise of power. Yes thi

Re: Diversity: How many disabled people are at Apache

Exactly Dave! How the hell did we wind up talking about these matters from Rafael's innocent question? Oh right because he used the word diversity in the subject. Obviously that was a huge error in judgement, right? Rafael there are others like you at apache, all dealing with disability of one

Re: Encouraging Diversity - Update 6

Again this is not the world we occupy. There is no litmus test for who can join our lists and participate. Safety remains a priority that needs to be addressed- not for the majority, but for those occasional cases where it can and does take place here. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 14, 2016,

Re: Code of Conduct - Over Responding

Lgtm! Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 8, 2016, at 6:27 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > > >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: >> >> >> On 06/06/2016 05:21 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: >> > >> >> The challenge with a CoC is know

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

Thx Roman! Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:44 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > Done! > >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Roman Shaposhnik >> wrote: >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Joseph Schaefer >> wrote: >>> As others have said

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

As others have said Roman, including Ross, it is neither likely to be used nor necessary to cleave a boundary between volunteers and Ross, but in the interests of keeping the peace I'm willing to compromise. Your patch is ok with me. Sent from my iPhone > On May 31, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Roman Sha

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

o email as the only volunteer (and a note that the list is >> expected to be expanded shortly)? >> >> Assuming you are OK with this, we can get this done and then discuss >> expanding that list of volunteers and some of the other improvements >> that have been suggested

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

al with the specifics and > thus extracting generalities in small numbers and non-specific summaries of > unique situations is not so helpful. > > > > A more important goal, in the foundation rather than individual sense, is to > deal with the root cause and make the approac

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects applies equally well to our ingress reporting strategy. Right now the only person who has acquired any substantial real word experience dealing with such reports is Ross, and perhaps a few other individuals who have proxied r

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

The word posturing is quite apt for your own behavior Roman, definitely some projection going on there. Again you are all over the map with your feedback. Here are the actual facts instead of your odd perceptions of them. 1) I made some suggestions about ombudsman@ and posted them here. 2) Ma

Re: [VOTE] Replace projects.apache.org with projects-new.apache.org

Kinda strange that none of this involves site-dev@ which was the genesis of the original site. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 13, 2015, at 3:44 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > > If someone other than me could apply those patches, that'd sure be swell. > This is (the future) projects.apache.org, not

Re: Mailing lists, sites, ...

I've seen this discussion a hundred times or so at Apache, whether it's forums issue trackers or version control. The story is always the same: a handful of software artisans want full uncompromising control over their toolchain. Half the time as is true here what they want is already function

Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?

ments and proposals in these > thread(s). Some volunteered to experiment too. What is the problem with such > an elusive solution, really? What is the perceived risk? > > My $0.02, > Hadrian > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_%28United_States%29 > > >> On 02/13/

Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?

That is a mischaracterization of the git story which was always about being able to support multiple version control tools. Yes people were concerned about the social side but we wouldn't be Apache without that debate. Same here. All you are seeing is some natural skepticism about the claims

Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?

Should projects wishing to circumvent Apache policy avoid Apache? See two people can play that rhetorical game Marvin. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:23 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> >> I know this looks old-fashioned,

Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?

SF" then I would think > that projects could just use that established practice and not have to > worry so much about their proposal... though I still feel that they would > need to put the proposal before the board as releasing things is something > that was delegated to eac

Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?

+1. Thinking early releases will yield higher quality confuses cause and effect. The organization Jim describes is the organization I joined over a decade ago, and still think the values he expresses are worth hanging onto today. On Feb 11, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Feb 11

Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?

gs like that is seemingly the price of progress. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:21 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > >> On 2/10/14, 3:05 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote: >> Frankly the notion that there is empirical evidence that >> the standard Apache process is “too slow an

Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?

Frankly the notion that there is empirical evidence that the standard Apache process is “too slow and buggy” is a straw man. I have over a decade of personal anecdotal evidence watching Apache projects self-improve and serve the needs of their communities rather well. If anything, I’d say many pro

Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?

Nevertheless there is something to be said for groups who do adjourn when they’ve actually finished something. Taking a break is an important part of the typical community dynamics. On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > On Monday, 10 February 2014, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >>>

Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?

I can see why cutting the time window might lead to a faster release cadence, but what I don’t get is why this is a desirable goal. Generally speaking, we try to encourage users to get involved in development, ostensibly by vetting release candidates as a zeroth order thing they can do to help the

Re: Edit the ApacheCon Banner on Website

Not sure if this is what you need, but I just granted you write access to the community.apache.org site. HTH On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Melissa Warnkin wrote: > OK, I'm adding in infra now since I haven't heard a peep from the community. > > Infra: Can you grant me the creds to go in and mak

Re: Inquiry Regarding the Performance Issue in Java Web-Deployment in Cloud Computing

Clouds are strongly associated with static electricity, whereas java is a strongly typed language it does nothing to help datacenters amass enough electricity to attract clouds and prevent them from dissipating into raindrops and other forms of dew. More modern data centers are attaching interfero