+1
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 08:40 Tomoko Uchida
wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new
+1 (PMC) from me too!
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:47 AM Michael Sokolov wrote:
> Sorry I missed the first vote I think; also +1(pmc) from me. I'd be OK
> with some issues (esp. closed ones) being orphaned in the old system
> too.
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 9:20 AM Dawid Weiss wrote:
> >
> >
> >
Sorry I missed the first vote I think; also +1(pmc) from me. I'd be OK
with some issues (esp. closed ones) being orphaned in the old system
too.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 9:20 AM Dawid Weiss wrote:
>
>
> I'm fine with either system (or both used concurrently). There is significant
> research
I'm fine with either system (or both used concurrently). There is
significant research effort Tomoko did already and I support this
effort: +1 from me.
Dawid
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:40 PM Tomoko Uchida
wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to
+1(pmc)
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022, 18:04 Michael McCandless,
wrote:
> +1 (PMC)
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:57 AM Robert Muir wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi everyone!
>> >
>> > As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose
+1 (PMC)
Mike
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:57 AM Robert Muir wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> > It'd be technically possible (see [2]
+1
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub issue
> from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be good
> for the project - not only for welcoming new
+1 (PMC)
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 9:09 AM Bruno Roustant
wrote:
> +0 (PMC)
>
> While I like the simplification, I'm a little concerned by the risk of
> disruption in history.
>
> Le mar. 7 juin 2022 à 05:07, Tomoko Uchida
> a écrit :
>
>> I'm sorry there was a mistake in the important date. This
+0 (PMC)
While I like the simplification, I'm a little concerned by the risk of
disruption in history.
Le mar. 7 juin 2022 à 05:07, Tomoko Uchida a
écrit :
> I'm sorry there was a mistake in the important date. This is the
> corrected version.
>
> ==
> this vote received 13 ballots in
I'm sorry there was a mistake in the important date. This is the
corrected version.
==
this vote received 13 ballots in total (including +1, +0, and -1) so
far, this does not reach the quorum of 15. I'll extend the term to
2022-06-13 16:00 UTC.
This is a friendly reminder note in case you
Hi all,
this vote received 13 ballots in total (including +1, +0, and -1) so
far, this does not reach the quorum of 15. I'll extend the term to
2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
This is a friendly reminder note in case you have missed it in my first post.
*IMPORTANT NOTE*
I set a local protocol for this
+1(committer, non PMC)
Lately I kinda feel having to create the Jira, after I detailed a
contribution in the pull request, is just a boilerplate activity of copying
and pasting and tagging again.
I would be happy to reduce this burden.
I left other details in the discussion thread.
Cheers
On
+1 (PMC)
I understand concerns about handing governance over to a 3rd party, but
letting that drive our decision-making here feels like optimizing for a
rare case that might never occur. I'd m,uch rather optimize for making
things easiest for contributors, and then accommodate any "Github ToS
-1 I think the disruption and bifurcation of where to find history is not
worth it. I also noticed a comment in the lucene issue for migration with
summaries by date range, status, affects version, etc. sub-area, exactly
the sort of thing I expect to be much more difficult to obtain from github.
-1
On Tue, 31 May, 2022, 4:06 am Xi Chen,
wrote:
> +1 from me (committer, non-PMC)
>
> Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading this
> effort!
>
> Best,
> Zach
>
> On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman wrote:
>
>
> +1 Approve (PMC)
>
> Thanks so much for doing
+1 from me (committer, non-PMC)
Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading this effort!
Best,
Zach
> On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman wrote:
>
>
> +1 Approve (PMC)
>
> Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
>
> - Houston
>
>> On Mon,
+1 Approve (PMC)
I'm not worried about reliance on GitHub as it is already approved by ASF. This
will lower the barrier to participation for new contributors.
- Jan
> 30. mai 2022 kl. 17:39 skrev Tomoko Uchida :
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose
+1 Approve (PMC)
Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
- Houston
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley wrote:
> +1 Approve (PMC)
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM
+1 Approve (PMC)
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida
wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically
-1 (PMC, but not a veto)
Why ? As stated earlier, I'm not confortable with depending on GitHub for
governance. As long as Lucene is an "Apache" project, I'd like Apache
governance to determine who may or may not participate, not GitHub. I'd like
Apache to determine what is and is not
So 15% is a quorum for votes.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
> On May 30, 2022, at 1:14 PM, Tomoko Uchida
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> thank you for participating for this!
>
> I may need to clarify the local rule I set.
> "15 votes" threshold
Hello, Tomoko.
+0
Thanks for moving it toward.
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 6:40 PM Tomoko Uchida
wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for
Hi,
thank you for participating for this!
I may need to clarify the local rule I set.
"15 votes" threshold means literally 15 votes, that includes approval(+1),
disapproval(-1), and no opinion(+0).
I don't mean we need 15 approvals or 15 disapprovals to make the dicision -
it could be too high
Hello everyone,
Not sure whether this email might help you, but let me share the VIVO
community experience with this issue. We have migrated JIRA issues
available at
https://vivo-project.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/VIVO/issues/
to GitHub issues available at
+0
There’s other people who have thought about this much more than I have, but
I wouldn’t want my inaction to impact the increase 15 vote threshold.
Mike Drob
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 10:40 AM Tomoko Uchida
wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration
Thank you Tomoko for starting the vote, although I didn't participate in
the last discussion but I'd love to see us moving towards the github issue.
So here's my +1 (committer, non-PMC)
BTW, by "the vote will be effective if it successfully gains more than 15%
of voters (>= 15) from committers",
Hi everyone!
As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
issue from Jira.
It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be good
for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
familiar with Jira, but also for improving the
27 matches
Mail list logo
