Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I trust that mentors, like any other, project their biases first! Like we see people do here. It is, no matter how much we dislike it, human nature. How it pans out is subject to speculation. Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Tue, Nov

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > IMO, I trust our PMCs and PPMCs to know whether RTC or CTR, or some > combination of both, is better suited to their community and > their project. Both processes can work great, and both can be > perfect disasters. +1. I

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On 17/11/2015 08:20, "Greg Stein" wrote: >On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Ted Dunning >> wrote: >> > ...RTC can be framed as "I don't trust you to do things

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

IMO, I trust our PMCs and PPMCs to know whether RTC or CTR, or some combination of both, is better suited to their community and their project. Both processes can work great, and both can be perfect disasters. PS: Please don't extrapolate the above too far and somehow use it for biases and

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Not sure how to totally grok the below... It seems to imply, logically, that we cannot require either CTR or RTC. So what other method is there? Certainly we need both a Review and a Commit and one must be done before the other, right? > On Nov 17, 2015, at 7:57 AM, Brock Noland

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

+1 Although an individual taking the RTC route is a bit different than there being a local policy that requires it. This has been addressed subsequently on this thread, but I am struck by Bertrand's simple statement. It inspired a different way of looking at RTC vs CTR. It is a community

Re: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Marko Rodriguez > wrote: > > ...The Apache Way should be about metrics.. > >...Get the human out of the loop! > > No. > > The ASF is built on the

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Certainly we need both a > Review and a Commit and one must be done before the other, > right? > Well, not necessarily. We need a commit. The review is, strictly speaking, optional. That means that the three choices

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Not sure how to totally grok the below... It seems to > imply, logically, that we cannot require either CTR or RTC. > So what other method is there? Certainly we need both a > Review and a Commit and one must be done before

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: ... snipped... > > But at the same time, RTC dissuades me from doing the minor stuff, because > the effort to submit a patch to correct a spelling error in a comment is so > high. I think it can endanger code quality.

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

> On 16 Nov 2015, at 22:50, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >> ... > >> 1) You're right, I don't trust anybody to make code changes to a complex >> project with zero oversight. I currently work on a project that I

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.5-incubating (RC3)

Vote to release Apache Zeppelin 0.5.5-incubating (RC3) passed with the following results: 3 binding "+1" votes, no "0" or "-1" votes. IPMC binding votes were provided by: Steve Loughran Justin Mclean Henry Saputra Here's vote thread:

[DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

Hi all, We'd like to start a discussion proposing the submission of Kudu to the Apache Incubator. The proposal is available on the Wiki here: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KuduProposal and pasted in this email for easy quoting during discussion. Looking forward to hearing feedback! -Todd

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On 17/11/2015 16:50, "Steve Loughran" wrote: >If someone were to have some metrics of projects, the state of >patches/pull requests would be a key issue. https://github.com/rvesse/gh-pr-stats Given a GitHub project generates statistics about the state of the Pull

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

Sounds great. I would love to be an help as a committer, if possible. This seems to be fantastic in line with my focus areas and can help existing big data projects to accelerate so Kudu's growth is something I would care about. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Todd Lipcon

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: > Sounds great. > > I would love to be an help as a committer, if possible. This seems to be > fantastic in line with my focus areas and can help existing big data > projects to accelerate so Kudu's growth is something I

[DISCUSS] Impala incubator proposal

Hi all - We'd like to start a discussion regarding a proposal to submit Impala to the Apache Incubator. The proposal text is available on the Wiki here: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ImpalaProposal and pasted below for convenience. I'm excited to make this proposal, and look forward to the

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation

I am just a peanut in the peanut gallery, but if I wanted to create a competing product based on OpenMiracl, I would feel disadvantaged by the MIRACL brand because every time I attributed OpenMiracl it would be remind folks of your brand. Maybe you can name your Apache project something like

Re: [DISCUSS] Impala incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 02:26PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi Henry - > > Absolutely, although I want to point out that only two of our three mentors which clearly constitutes "almost all" as Henry pointed out :) On a different note: have the initial delopers considered a possibility of bringing

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015, at 06:01 PM, Rob Vesse wrote: > On 17/11/2015 16:50, "Steve Loughran" wrote: > > >If someone were to have some metrics of projects, the state of > >patches/pull requests would be a key issue. > > https://github.com/rvesse/gh-pr-stats > > Given a

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation

Hi Shane, given your role, I'm hoping you can make some suggestions to help us out of this bind so we can move forward. It would really be appreciated. As stated previously, 'OpenMiracl: A cryptosystem for cloud computing' is a 'proposed' Apache Project / platform name. MIRACL is the name of the

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation

Hi Alex, thank you for the suggestion, but from our point of view, as I outlined below, we would disadvantage the project as a whole by not having the MIRACL name in it. At the same time, I completely understand the concern that a company who creates a product based on OpenMiracl might feel

Re: [DISCUSS] S2Graph Incubator Proposal

Thank you guys for your interests in S2Graph. @hyunsik Thanks for helping us out as champion. @andrew, @sergio, @seetharam Thanks for volunteer as mentor. @sergio. Thanks for attending my talk at the last ApacheCon. I totally agree that growing the real community out of Kakao is first priority.

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:21:02 -0500 Shane Curcuru wrote: > Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/13/15 9:27 AM: > > A key point here is: would other organizations be interested in having > their employees contribute to the project? Or would other organizations > likely see that your

Re: [DISCUSS] S2Graph Incubator Proposal

Thank you Henry. Yes, we already had enough time to discuss the S2Graph proposal. I'll make a vote thread soon. Best regards, Hyunsik On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > Looks like we have positive responses. I think it is time for VOTE thread :) > >

Re: Wiki write access request

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > I'd like to request write access to the incubator wiki. My username is > HenryRobinson, and I'm intending to update the Impala proposal. Done. Marvin Humphrey

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:43AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: > > > Sounds great. > > > > I would love to be an help as a committer, if possible. This seems to be > > fantastic in line with my focus areas and can help existing big

Wiki write access request

Hi - I'd like to request write access to the incubator wiki. My username is HenryRobinson, and I'm intending to update the Impala proposal. Thanks! Henry

Re: [VOTE] Retire Corinthia

+1 (binding) On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 07:01PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > Greetings, > > The Corinthia community has voted to retire: > > http://s.apache.org/odN > > This is a vote of the IPMC to confirm the decision to retire the podling. > > [ ] +1 to retire Corinthia from the Incubator > [

Re: [DISCUSS] Impala incubator proposal

Same here. Happy to see this come to the ASF! On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: > Awesome! Glad to see this coming to the ASF :-) > > ++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Chief

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation

Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/11/15 12:42 AM: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > >>> The ASF project called OpenMiracl and Certivox/MIRACL continuing to use the >>> MIRACL mark would seem to muddy the water between the two. Would this not >>> disadvantage others

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation

Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/13/15 9:27 AM: > Hello, Brian, > > Thanks for collaborating with Nick and bringing this proposal to us! > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Brian Spector > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> among cryptographers in the embedded / IoT space, the

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:53AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > > > ...RTC can be framed as "I don't trust you to do things right"... > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > So, you're saying that people were chosen to be listed or not as the > contributors merely by the amount of the code they have contributed to the > project. Am I reading this right? We've had this debate about

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > > For now, I think "meritocracy" should be followed -- when contributors > > demonstrate sufficient merit, we can add them as committers. Note that > > there are plenty of my coworkers who have made small

Re: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

Hi, I suppose the distilled intention of the proposal is to identify the answer(s) to the following question: What makes a "good" open source project? As I read on general@ and from our project's mentors, "good" is grounded in personal experience (i.e. anecdotes). Why not use the data

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:45PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:53AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Ted Dunning > > wrote: > > > > ...RTC

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

In "community" section of this proposal, there are many companies have been mentioned including Xiaomi, Dropbox, Intel and Dremio, and said there are contributions from them. I think their engineers are more interesting and be involved in Kudu actively, why not think about to invite them to be

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > Except that there seems to be great disagreement among the Members as to > whether RTC is somehow anti-Apache-Way. > That seems rather melodramatic. Speaking for myself, I've said that I find RTC a terrible basis for

Re: [DISCUSS] Impala incubator proposal

On 17 November 2015 at 16:30, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 02:26PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > > Hi Henry - > > > > Absolutely, although I want to point out that only two of our three > mentors > > which clearly constitutes "almost all" as Henry pointed out

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:33PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Atri, > > > > > > Thanks for the interest! Following the example of other recent incubator > > > projects, we would like to keep the initial committer list to those who > > are > > > already have a track record of contributions

Re: [DISCUSS] Impala incubator proposal

Awesome! Glad to see this becoming part of ASFŠ On 11/17/15, 10:49 AM, "Henry Robinson" wrote: >Hi all - > >We'd like to start a discussion regarding a proposal to submit Impala to >the Apache Incubator. > >The proposal text is available on the Wiki here:

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

And we'd be pleased to hear your advice over on our [DISCUSS] thread :) On 17 November 2015 at 16:59, Henry Saputra wrote: > You were trying to comment on Impala proposal =P > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > > On

RE: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

It's a problem when "mentors" tell projects what to do. The role of a mentor is to explain the pros and cons of different approaches so that the community can make an optimal decision The Apache Way is indeed about doing what is right for the community. Its not a prescriptive model. There are

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > On the contrary... The business of the Incubator and IPMC is to help > podlings > and their communities to grok and follow the Apache Way. Trust is a > foundation > principal of a healthy community. Hence, this whole

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:53PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik > wrote: > > > > > So, you're saying that people were chosen to be listed or not as the

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:53AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > ...RTC can be framed as "I don't trust you to do things right"... > > Or also "I don't trust myself 100% to do things right here and would > like

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > I agree that this prospective podling is going to have a lot of work > to do, and I think that a more diverse Mentor corps is badly

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

You were trying to comment on Impala proposal =P On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

> > > > Hi Atri, > > > > Thanks for the interest! Following the example of other recent incubator > > projects, we would like to keep the initial committer list to those who > are > > already have a track record of contributions to the project. We'd love to > > have you involved as a contributor

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 04:50PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > >... > > > 1) You're right, I don't trust anybody to make code changes to a complex > > project with zero oversight. I currently work on a project that I > > > > I have

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Completely agreed Todd about the irrelevance of these ad hoc assessments of something nobody actually questions. On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik > wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:53PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > > So, you're saying that people were chosen to be listed or not as the > > contributors merely by the amount of the code they have contributed to the > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Luke Han wrote: > In "community" section of this proposal, there are many companies > have been mentioned including Xiaomi, Dropbox, Intel and Dremio, > and said there are contributions from them. > > I think their engineers are more

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I see the essence of what it means to be a committer. Being trusted to both do the correct action and be willing to listen objectively to criticism. In an CTR project it is clear to me that the point where a project grants Committership should be the point where the PMC wants to treat an

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

That is what I say: you're projecting. Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Pierre Smits > wrote: > >... > > >

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Of course it is community-based! (never said otherwise) And my points are attempting to inform people about the underlying principles of trust in these two modes of community operation. And (IMO) that RTC is a horrible underpinning, preventing an establishment of a true trust relationship among

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >... > And by the way, this has little to do with trust. More with hope. As in: we > hope they won't abuse our trust. It seems you're projecting trust issues! > It is ALL about trust. I've worked in the httpd, apr, and

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Hunh? How do you get that? I trust my fellow committers. That's not projection. If I joined Hadoop right now, RTC says I cannot commit without review. That is called "lack of trust". That I am unable to determine what is safe to commit, and what I feel I need help with to safely commit. -g On

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

No... That is a resolution in play based on consensus by the community. You may question that. But it is better done there. Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > Hunh?

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I don't you mind having your opinion. I guess it is not based on measurable facts. And if it were so, then someone else would come along and say: don't trust the data! Best regards. Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Greg

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > > ...RTC can be framed as "I don't trust you to do things right"... > > Or also "I don't trust myself 100% to do things right

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

This is not just about having your own way. This is working with the rest of the community. If you feel that CTR is wrong, make a case in the community, build consensus and adhere accordingly. If you feel that RTC is wrong, make a case in the community, build consensus and work accordingly. There

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I’ve been reading this discussion with some amusement. I’m not strongly in either camp. I can see the advantages to both RTC and CTR. One advantage to RTC that I have not seen stressed in this discussion, is that it forces others to actually review changes. Sure. The responsible thing to do is

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > >... > > > I think it's a _plus_ that contributors and committers contribute code in > > the same way -- it's more of a level playing field for new

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Le 18/11/15 08:12, Todd Lipcon a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny > wrote: >>> Except that there seems to be great disagreement among the Members as to >>> whether RTC is somehow anti-Apache-Way. >>> >>> If you want to try to create an ASF-wide

Re: [DISCUSS] Impala incubator proposal

Awesome! Glad to see this coming to the ASF :-) ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop:

RE: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

Very strong -1 I'm pretty sure the details of my objections will already be covered in the thread (not read it yet, just need to express my very clear objection to this proposal, I'll follow up else-thread if there is anything I need to add beyond my summary below). Summary of my objection:

Re: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote: >> ...The Apache Way should be about metrics.. >>...Get the human out of the loop! > > No. > > The ASF is built on the collective

Re: [DISCUSS] S2Graph Incubator Proposal

Hi guys, Thank you guys for your interests in S2Graph. Atri, I'm happy to see your interest. But, I have a little bit concern about your free slot. You seem to start various project recently. So, I expect you may be busy now days. If you still have free slot, we are welcome to your

Re: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

It is not the metrics that vote. Humans do. Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz >

Re: [DISCUSS] S2Graph Incubator Proposal

Looks like we have positive responses. I think it is time for VOTE thread :) On Friday, November 6, 2015, Hyunsik Choi wrote: > Hi folks, > > We would like to start a discussion on S2Graph as an incubation project. > > S2Graph is a distributed and scalable OLTP graph

Re: [DISCUSS] Impala incubator proposal

Hi Henry - Absolutely, although I want to point out that only two of our three mentors are Cloudera employees. That said, we'd of course be delighted to consider any additional offers of mentorship. Best, Henry On 17 November 2015 at 14:17, Henry Saputra wrote: > Glad

Re: [DISCUSS] Impala incubator proposal

Glad to have the proposal :) Immediate glance would show almost all, including mentors, are coming from Cloudera. I think it would be beneficial for the podling to have at least mentors from different org to provide bit of balance. - Henry On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Henry Robinson

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Come on folks it's not cut and dry. Httpd uses both without fuss about roles, trust, etc. This is a process issue much like the choice of version control tool you select, it really is not a big deal. On Wednesday, November 18, 2015, Dave Fisher wrote: > I see the

Re: [DISCUSS] S2Graph Incubator Proposal

Glad to see s2graph being put up as an incubator project. Here [1] are some suggested edits to try and help strengthen the proposal before it goes up for a vote. Hopefully they help. St.Ack 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19iNc0u_-9ogb0kDC-WnLoWWg9J_LFeuSGB8GF_rQfEs/edit?usp=sharing On

Re: [VOTE] Retire Corinthia

+1 (binding) On Nov 16, 2015 03:01, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote: > Greetings, > > The Corinthia community has voted to retire: > > http://s.apache.org/odN > > This is a vote of the IPMC to confirm the decision to retire the podling. > > [ ] +1 to retire Corinthia from the

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Le 18/11/15 03:06, Todd Lipcon a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > >> On the contrary... The business of the Incubator and IPMC is to help >> podlings >> and their communities to grok and follow the Apache Way. Trust is a >> foundation >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

Hi Todd, One concern, other IPMCs could help correct me if I am wrong, for project that already open source and accepting contributions from individuals which not part of initial committers is that it needs to get the consent or grant from those contributors when moving to ASF. Unless, the

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

In RTC, a contributor sending in a patch, a pull request, or a JIRA/patch is handled exactly the same as any other committer. None are trusted to apply their change, until they receive review and permission from others. So you would think that "everybody" would get committer status on Day One. Why

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > Hi Todd, > > One concern, other IPMCs could help correct me if I am wrong, for > project that already open source and accepting contributions from > individuals which not part of initial committers is that it needs

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > In RTC, a contributor sending in a patch, a pull request, or a JIRA/patch > is handled exactly the same as any other committer. None are trusted to > apply their change, until they receive review and permission from others.

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > > >> > > Except that there seems to be great disagreement among the Members as to > > whether RTC is somehow anti-Apache-Way. > > > > If you want to try to create an ASF-wide resolution that RTC doesn't > follow > >

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > I think it's a _plus_ that contributors and committers contribute code in > the same way -- it's more of a level playing field for new people > contributing to the project. > "level playing field"?? seriously?? I find