+1
Thanks
Sreekanth
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>
> Following two positive discussions[1][2] about its curent status, the
> Lens community has voted[3] to graduate from the Incubator. The vote
> passed with 22 +1s:
>
> Binding +1 x 14: {Jakob, Jean-Baptiste, Yash, Amaresh
Well this explains how it got this way, it was poorly worded from the start...
The first part is about incoming code (the SGA) and nothing has changed there.
The second part says " SHALL formally request the Incubator PMC approve such a
release" It does not say [VOTE] and it was never, IMHO, in
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> The proposed need to announce release votes on the IPMC list is how things
> were when the incubator was created. The need for IPMC to control the process
> is another case of the IPMC over-reaching itself and in so doing causing
> problems
The proposed need to announce release votes on the IPMC list is how things were
when the incubator was created. The need for IPMC to control the process is
another case of the IPMC over-reaching itself and in so doing causing problems
by creating a bottleneck in the process.
It used to be that
Hi Richard!
sorry for the belated reply (OSCON is to blame ;-))
I see that you've successfully updated the wiki. This
is great. I'm planning to do one last round of planning
within that Speed Dating/Shark Tank slot with everybody
who volunteered. Expect an email from me soon.
Thanks,
Roman.
On W
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 01:38PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.07.2015 10:56, jan i wrote:
> > On 26 July 2015 at 10:40, Justin Mclean wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"... Cut
> >> that
> >>> away is a good start in reforming the Incubator
On 2015-07-27 01:20, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
I'd like to raise a somewhat orthogonal point. Mainly the fact that our
obsession with doing good work with podlings could, very well, be
obscuring a much more important issues. And given how limited
our resources of eyeballs looking at releases are
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
>
> On 2015-07-26 10:56, jan i wrote:
>>
>> No that is an important service, on the other hand I also agree that the
>> mentors should be guiding/running the podlings not general@
>>
>> Maybe we can find some middle ground.
>> - Mentors "run"
Hi Daniel
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Apologies in advance for slightly crossing threads here.
I'll try to keep you straight in replying to the parts that belong to
this thread ;-)
> But let's get some facts straight first:
> - The champion of the project created a DI
On 2015-07-26 10:56, jan i wrote:
No that is an important service, on the other hand I also agree that the
mentors should be guiding/running the podlings not general@
Maybe we can find some middle ground.
- Mentors "run" the podlings, can accept releases etc.
- Mentors decide when a podlng can
David, I think we've been there before a few month ago.
In my view, you're articulating collective (IPMC) vs.
personal (mentors) responsibility.
IIRC, we came to be on different sides of that divide.
I'll repeat again what I said in that discussion: I like
the mentor responsibility model a LOT fo
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:50 AM, toki wrote:
>
>
> On 07/26/2015 04:35 PM, jan i wrote:
>
>> unless we don't trust the mentors
>
> It isn't a case of not trusting the mentors, but rather, the ease with
> which something can be accidentally overlooked.
>
> Rephrased. The mentor is too close to the
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:56 AM, jan i wrote:
> No that is an important service, on the other hand I also agree that the
> mentors should be guiding/running the podlings not general@
>
> Maybe we can find some middle ground.
> - Mentors "run" the podlings, can accept releases etc.
> - Mentors deci
On 2015-07-27 00:04, Ross Gardler wrote:
Wait. I think this is overstating the "displeasure".
I don't see anyone saying the feedback is not valuable. I see mentors being
asked to clearly state their recommendation with reference to the feedback. The
thread was too long and argumentative to d
Since I am relatively new to the Incubator (given that it turns 13 in
just 2½ month), I will ask a question that may have been answered in the
earlier years:
Have we given any thought to some sort of mentor rotation policy?
One could argue that what we especially lack right now is the 'outside
I'll keep it short :)
I fully agree that many of these issues should have been addressed much
earlier, it would have been better that way.
I don't think our current incubation process in tandem with this being a
volunteer process is "doing the right thing" at all times, and I am more
than will
Wait. I think this is overstating the "displeasure".
I don't see anyone saying the feedback is not valuable. I see mentors being
asked to clearly state their recommendation with reference to the feedback. The
thread was too long and argumentative to draw any conclusions.
I also see concerns tha
Daniel, I agree with almost all your points about process (I do not have an
opinion on Ignite, the mentors have expressed their opinion based in feedback
in this thread, the IPMC will ultimately decide on whether graduation is
appropriate).
My complaint about process is that these things should
Apologies in advance for slightly crossing threads here.
Even though I have already sent quite a lot of emails on this subject
(12 over the past week!), I feel I must reply to some of the concerns
and opinions expressed in the last few emails. I do not like it when
concerns are answered with t
I think my own experience as a mentor over recent years is useful here. I
thought I understood what was necessary for apache releases when, in fact, I
understood release requirements for releases like the ones I had previously
seen.
The wider by shepherds and by the general votes was a pain
>
> Empower the Mentors to run the podlings, teach the newcomers and bring it
> to TLP.
>
As a mentor of podlings, I dislike the above idea.
Mentors get busy, they miss things, sometimes big things. Sometimes
things that are obvious to an outsider are missed by mentors who don't
catch it. I've ce
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"...
>> Cut that away is a good start in reforming the Incubator…
Many of those vote threads are very high quality and valuable.
Successful vote threads are short: a few +1
On 07/26/2015 04:35 PM, jan i wrote:
> unless we don't trust the mentors
It isn't a case of not trusting the mentors, but rather, the ease with
which something can be accidentally overlooked.
Rephrased. The mentor is too close to the project, to see all of the
errors in the project.
jonathon
Note, there must be the binding +1 for a release. This means either three
active mentors our some assistance from the IPMC. This is fine, some IPMC
members are very experienced in this regard and are very helpful (as well as
reasonable, that is understanding when something's a blocker and when i
On Sunday, July 26, 2015, Don Bosco Durai wrote:
> My only concern is now the mentor(s) need to check everything before
> approving. In my experience, during the early stages of the releases, lot
> of the license, naming, release location, etc. related issues were
> identified during the approval
My only concern is now the mentor(s) need to check everything before
approving. In my experience, during the early stages of the releases, lot
of the license, naming, release location, etc. related issues were
identified during the approval in the general@ list. Which were very
helpful to us.
Know
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> The only downside of this proposal is that it assumes that every podling
> has at least three active (!) mentors.
No, I don't necessarily mean that you need 3 mentors either. One active
mentor would be fine with me. Empower the podling to st
On 26.07.2015 10:56, jan i wrote:
> On 26 July 2015 at 10:40, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"... Cut
>> that
>>> away is a good start in reforming the Incubator…
>> IMO Which provides a valuable service in showing poddlings on ho
On 26 July 2015 at 10:40, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"... Cut
> that
> > away is a good start in reforming the Incubator…
>
> IMO Which provides a valuable service in showing poddlings on how to make
> good releases. Do we want t
Hi,
> About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"... Cut that
> away is a good start in reforming the Incubator…
IMO Which provides a valuable service in showing poddlings on how to make good
releases. Do we want to get rid of that?
Thanks,
Justin
-
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
>#2 The #1 goal is achieved via mentorship. In fact mentorship is
> not even required
> as the case of Zest (and hopeful Yetus soon) demonstrated.
>#3 When mentorship is required IPMC entrusts the mentors to guide
> the proj
31 matches
Mail list logo
