Podling Name Searches

All, If a podling had its name and codebase donated from a company, which had already secured rights to the name, what is required in the podling name search? John

Re: Podling Name Searches

On 25.01.2015 14:08, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > If a podling had its name and codebase donated from a company, which had > already secured rights to the name, The term "secured rights" is a bit misleading. Even if they have a registered trademark, that's no guarantee that it doesn't infringe

Re: my pTLP view

With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make votes we call binding on matters of their own project. Under the pTLP proposal they will not have this unless they happen to already be part of the Apache membership. I don't find it a distinction without a difference. I think it withholds an ownership stake

Re: my pTLP view

On 25.01.2015 19:16, Andrew Purtell wrote: > With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make votes we call binding on matters of > their own project. As other people have said, PPMC members (that are not also IPMC members) do not have binding votes, neither for releases nor for inviting new committers/PPM

Re: my pTLP view

> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems with ​> ​ a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the impression ​> ​ that the PPMC can make binding decisions. ​Close. The PPMC membership feels they have made a decision that matters with equal input. Certainly on

Re: my pTLP view

On 25.01.2015 19:51, Andrew Purtell wrote: >> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems with > ​> ​ > a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the impression > ​> ​ > that the PPMC can make binding decisions. > > ​Close. The PPMC membership feels they have made

Re: my pTLP view

> This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals, then the decision is reviewed as a whole. But this is not how things would work in a pTLP, right? Individua

Re: my pTLP view

Oh, my mistake! (smile) I confused pTLP with the "Strawman" proposal there for a minute. In the pTLP proposal, there are no new-to-the-Foundation project members on the pTLP PMC. "All proposals for new ASF projects must include an initial PMC chair and an initial set of PMC members. These people m

Re: my pTLP view

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. > > Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal > ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals, > then the decision is reviewed as a whole.

Re: my pTLP view

In all of the projects I have been PMC or PPMC on, we vote on releases, new committers, and elevating committers to PMC. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. > > >

Re: my pTLP view

Apache Subversion uses discussion/consensus for all of those. We throw out +1 and similar as shorthand for our preference, but we never tally, as it isn't a formal vote. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > In all of the projects I have been PMC or PPMC on, we vote on release

Re: my pTLP view

Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is what we're talking about. Not the Strawman. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Oh, my mistake! (smile) I confused pTLP with the "Strawman" proposal there > for a minute. In the pTLP proposal, there are

Re: my pTLP view

Yes, and I briefly confused the two, and fessed up. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is > what we're talking about. Not the Strawman. > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > Oh,

Re: my pTLP view

I'm not arguing with you Greg (smile), honestly, Subversion sounds like a very laid back place to participate. It's different in Bigtop, HBase, Phoenix, Whirr (of historical note), and Hadoop (secondhand observation), Hive (secondhand observation), ZooKeeper (secondhand observation) and others. For

Re: my pTLP view

On 25.01.2015 21:07, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I'm not arguing with you Greg (smile), honestly, Subversion sounds like a > very laid back place to participate. It's different in Bigtop, HBase, > Phoenix, Whirr (of historical note), and Hadoop (secondhand observation), > Hive (secondhand observation),

Re: my pTLP view

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > ...They are reporting to the Board. We know what inactivity looks like. So we > ask the PMC to fix it, or we shut them down I know how that works, it's just that with your pTLP proposal the podling is "at the mercy" of their mentors - if th

Re: my pTLP view

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> ...They are reporting to the Board. We know what inactivity looks like. So we >> ask the PMC to fix it, or we shut them down > > I know how that works, it's just that with your

Re: my pTLP view

On Jan 25, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >>> ...They are reporting to the Board. We know what inactivity looks like. So >>> we >>> ask the PMC to fix it, or we shut

RE: my pTLP view

And even in the strawman (at least how I wrote it) there is even less of a gap from today's model to the pTLP proposal under discussion here. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Stein Sent: ‎1/‎25/‎2015 12:03 PM To: general@incubator.apa