Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> My point is that with 1 mentor, everyone knows where the buck stops. >> With >1 nobody knows. A flat hierarchy for mentors does not seem >>

RE: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

Further to Sam's suggestion and observations below see Suggestion 0.1.8 at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013#Suggestions -Original Message- From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:26 AM To:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating (RC3)

Thanks, I should have looked in the release directory. - Henry On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Till Westmann wrote: >> The KEYS file is in >>

RE: Possible process improvement?

Great suggestion, can you modify the templates? All ASF committers have write access to the comdev site via the ASF CMS. Only ComDev contributors have commit there, so you might want to ping d...@community.apache.org if your change gets missed for some reason. Ross -Original Message-

Re: Possible process improvement?

Dave, It is considered very bad form to mix public and private lists in an email. I have thus deleted the private@ list from my response. I think your suggestion is a good one, but I might suggest that you ask for "non-Apache email contact address". Having the new committer set up the

Re: Possible process improvement?

On 14/10/2015 21:07, Dave Birdsall wrote: > Now, the iCLA form itself asks for the preferred apache ID. But that form > does not ask about forwarding e-mail ID. Too, the receipt of the iCLA is > forwarded to the podling’s private list, but not the iCLA itself. The CLA form [1] includes e-mail

RE: Possible process improvement?

Hi, Re: My assertion that iCLA lacks e-mail address: I was incorrect. Thanks for pointing it out. It might make sense though if the purpose of the e-mail address was pointed out there, e.g, "This is the e-mail address that your apache e-mail will be forwarded to.". Good to know also that mentors

Possible process improvement?

Hi, I’m a committer/PMC member on the Trafodion podling. One thing I’m noticing about the new committer process // community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process is that we sometimes get hung up on the step, “Request creation of the committer account”. The reason for the

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:10AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > If it can work, that is very good. With intermittent availability, I have > often seen the need for a spare. Exactly! I've been out for 6 weeks back in May/June and missed all the reports and other activity on the projects I am/was a mentor

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

The biggest issue with mentor disengagement IMO is that when incubation starts to take longer than 9 months it is hard to maintain focus and engagement if you are not a user/member of the incubating community (and its code). So while we can start measuring AWOL mentors and try to fix that by

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

On 14/10/15 16:21, Ross Gardler wrote: Further to Sam's suggestion and observations below see Suggestion 0.1.8 at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013#Suggestions (Summary: Champion => PPMC chair) I agree with the comments that champion-as-chair is a negative to the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating (rc1)

+1 (binding) Verified checksum, signature, and NOTICE/DISCLAIMER/LICENSE. Built from source, skimmed deps and checked projects I didn't recognize for license compat e.g., Tukaani (public domain). -C On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Mariia Mykhailova wrote: > The Apache

Re: Possible process improvement?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Dave Birdsall wrote: > Hi, > > Re: My assertion that iCLA lacks e-mail address: I was incorrect. Thanks for > pointing it out. It might make sense though if the purpose of the e-mail > address was pointed out there, e.g, "This is the

[VOTE] Release Apache Kylin 1.1-incubating (rc1)

Hi all, The Apache Kylin community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache Kylin 1.1-incubating. Proposal:http://s.apache.org/Jzu Vote result: 7 binding +1 votes 6 non-binding +1 votes No -1 voteshttp://s.apache.org/kylin-1.1-result_rc1 The commit to be voted

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

Agreed here as well. My point is that with 1 mentor, everyone knows where the buck stops. With >1 nobody knows. A flat hierarchy for mentors does not seem workable or, at least, optimal. If we wish to address this, and not "force" mentors to leave, we could simply add the idea of "lead mentor"

Re: structural reform- division of labor

I apologize for the formatting, Y!'s html-only text munging is to blame. On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:26 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: To be specific, what I have in mind is something like

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

Agreed. My only comment would be that I still think that the optimal number of mentors is 1. > On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > It's not activity on the dev list, or even report signoffs, that > matter most. Podlings, especially new podlings, have lots and

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

And sometimes, s/spare/sparring partner/ :) I find it extremely useful to have a fellow mentor to bounce ideas and perceptions off on. Sometimes having a really engaged mentor and a more loosely engaged works well, as you get both a view from the inside and the outside. With regards, Daniel. On

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

Hello, I concur with this. Once we got one of our mentors engaged -- Daniel Gruno -- its been smooth sailing. You know how we got him engaged? HipChat. He set us up an account and now we can "@Humbedooh" with questions and get responses. No more "Hello?! Please answer our emails..." So yes,

Re: [DISCUSS] [REVISED] Mentor neutrality policy

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > The revised edition, as partly suggested by Sam (and echoed by Bertrand) > was: > > - Binding votes on incubation, graduation and/or retirement are only > valid when given by members of the IPMC who are independent

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

If it can work, that is very good. With intermittent availability, I have often seen the need for a spare. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Agreed. My only comment would be that I still think that the > optimal number of mentors is 1. > > > On Oct 14,

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

I'll note that this is mostly questions about legalities of things and technical tidbits - we are not having community discussions off-list per se, just questions from individuals on how to word this, phrase that, what RTC/CTR is etc. And everything is brought back to the list for a thorough

Re: structural reform- division of labor

This list is a pretty high volume list that really is intended for topics suitable for a general audience of incubator participants.  Nevertheless it carries a lot of traffic better suited for more topic-specific specialization.   Not everyone here is capable of participating in release voting,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Kylin 1.1-incubating (rc1)

+1 MD5 & SHA1 checksum verified License files are all there Unit Test passed Best Regards! - Luke Han On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:42 AM, ShaoFeng Shi wrote: > Hi all, > > The Apache Kylin community has voted on and approved a proposal to release >

structural reform- division of labor

Elsewhere in the org several ideas have been floated around regardinggeneral reorganization and reform.  Things like possibly creating a newcommittee to oversee inbound and outbound podlings, or perhaps having the IPMC form such a subcommittee. I mention these notions not because I support

Re: structural reform- division of labor

To be specific, what I have in mind is something like proposals@incubatordocs@incubatormentoring@incubatorgraduation@incubatorreleases@incubator We probably don't need to start off with more subdivisions than that. On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:06 PM, Joe Schaefer

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > My point is that with 1 mentor, everyone knows where the buck stops. > With >1 nobody knows. A flat hierarchy for mentors does not seem > workable or, at least, optimal. > That's a fine point. But it is counter to my

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Agreed here as well. > > My point is that with 1 mentor, everyone knows where the buck stops. > With >1 nobody knows. A flat hierarchy for mentors does not seem > workable or, at least, optimal. > > If we wish to address