Hi,
I’m still not 100% sure that this project its ready to graduate. Looking at the
roster [1] only 1/2 the the proposed PMC members are signed up to the projects
private list. Some of the people suggested have limited interaction on the
mailing list(s) and in a couple of cases have never
The ticket is now open:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-165
Cheers,
Antoine
> On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:24 PM, Antoine Toulme wrote:
>
> Perfect, thank you.
>
>> On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:17 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>
>> Antoine Toulme wrote on Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 15:09:39
That's right Greg. And since we are filling in gaps for people...
I was originally against the pTLP concept (though I supported the experiments)
or any of the derivatives that came from it. I think I have changed my
position. Largely based on the fact that every single project I've discussed
+1, binding
Best Regards,
Von Gosling
> 在 2019年2月28日，下午12:44，Markus Weimer 写道：
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> we've discussed the proposal for the TVM project in [1]. The proposal itself
> can
> be found on the wiki [2].
>
> According to the Incubator rules[3] I'd like to call a vote to accept the
+1
If we trust mentors to ensure that their podling does the right thing as a
board committee this basically *is* a TLP and we wouldn't need an IPMC, but
if podlings need an IPMC then that must be because we allow for the
podlings to make missteps without bringing down the hammer.
Seems to me
+1 (binding)
-Vinay
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019, 11:47 am 吴晟 Sheng Wu, wrote:
> +1 binding
>
>
> --
> Sheng Wu
> Apache SkyWalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> Twitter, wusheng1108
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original --
> From: "Mohammad Asif Siddiqui";
> Date:
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ross Gardler wrote:
> If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to
> act on behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the
> foundation.
>
>...
> Podlings would only become full TLPs once they have demonstrated their
>
+1 binding
--
Sheng Wu
Apache SkyWalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
Twitter, wusheng1108
-- Original --
From: "Mohammad Asif Siddiqui";
Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2019 02:13 PM
To: "general";
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept Apache TVM into the
+1 (binding)
Regards
Asif
On 2019/02/28 04:44:13, Markus Weimer wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> we've discussed the proposal for the TVM project in [1]. The proposal itself
> can
> be found on the wiki [2].
>
> According to the Incubator rules[3] I'd like to call a vote to accept the new
>
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 9:58 PM Craig Russell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> > On Mar 3, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > Acts of the Foundation require specific oversight of the IPMC. To
> establish
> > that "act", we have the (3) +1 vote rule of IPMC members. The IPMC cannot
> > delegate
If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to act on
behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the foundation.
We already have a good set of practices around marking incubator projects and
their releases.
This is dependent upon the project
Hi Greg,
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Acts of the Foundation require specific oversight of the IPMC. To establish
> that "act", we have the (3) +1 vote rule of IPMC members. The IPMC cannot
> delegate this power further, as each IPMC member is specifically empowered
> by
I'd like to understand Greg's concerns better.
The complaint that I saw has to do with comments on release candidates, which I
believe there is a straightforward solution for (don't be so picky about the
first podling releases).
Are there any other instances of IPMC members meddling in
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:27 PM Thomas Weise wrote:
> Currently mentors need to be IPMC members. Is that really necessary?
>
Yes and no. :-)
If mentors are going to vote on *official releases* (and we skip the extra
layer of IPMC voting), then (3) mentors must be on the IPMC to make the
Hi
I do the following changes.
1. Committer and PPMC number updated, in CO40
2. Releases and bugs updated, in QU50
3. Contributor updated, in IN10
Thanks.
--
Sheng Wu
Apache SkyWalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
Twitter, wusheng1108
-- Original
Hi,
Yes and thanks for pointing this out.
> I have updated the document[1].
>
Have any other changes been made since last time?
Thanks.,
Justin
>
Hi Justin
> I assume the maturity documentation linked to in the discussion is slightly
> out of date? [1] as it states "The community has elected 1 new committer and
> 1 PPMC member during incubation, based on meritocracy.??.
Yes and thanks for pointing this out.
I have updated the
Thanks Justin for the reminder, this came up during the first discussion too
and I completely skipped it.
The updated proposal is, including improvement from Sebb's feedback,
==
Establish the Apache SkyWalking Project
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
> >
> > WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of
> > the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish
> > a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance
> > of open-source software, for distribution at no charge to
Hi,
>> SkyWalking is making more consensus decisions via the ML, including
>> discussions and decisions on issue, test, release, new committer and
>> branding issues. Since the last graduation discussion, the community has
>> voted in 9 new committers, 3 of them also as PPMC members.
I assume
Currently mentors need to be IPMC members. Is that really necessary?
Alternatively mentors could be given all required powers through the PPMC
membership and the IPMC could be more focused on long term direction and
improving the incubator as a whole. IPMC already votes on incubator
proposals and
My moin wiki username is `kenn`. May I be granted write access?
Kenn
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:46 PM leerho wrote:
> I can read but I cannot make a few formatting changes. Also, in the sorted
> list of Project Proposals the entry for DataSketchesProposal is
> misspelled.
>
> On Fri, Mar 1,
Hi Sebb
> Seems to me this is a bit too specific (and long) - can the example
> target systems be left out?
> e.g. it could perhaps be rephrased as:
> related to application performance monitoring (aka a distributed tracing
> system)
Thanks for noticing this.
Short version, we could say,
On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 12:08, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>
> Apache SkyWalking entered incubation in December of 2017. The SkyWalking
> community has learnt a lot about how to do things in The Apache Way.
>
> The first time graduation was raised for discussion, five months ago, the
> IPMC thought
Apache SkyWalking entered incubation in December of 2017. The SkyWalking
community has learnt a lot about how to do things in The Apache Way.
The first time graduation was raised for discussion, five months ago, the IPMC
thought SkyWalking was not yet ready because of issues around
As a peanut, IMO, it could be that the root problem is that the drive-by folks
are discussing topics that are too subjective at a critical time (to get a
release out), not the number of folks who can drive-by. I'm not even in the
IPMC, and I can still follow general@ and offer opinions.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:42 AM Ted Dunning wrote:
> Greg,
>
> Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers?
>
Nope. I don't interact/meddle with podlings, but stick to meta/process
issues within the Incubator.
Somewhat recently, I worked with Fineract and Mynewt as a
27 matches
Mail list logo
