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 from the > podling in qu

Re: Require projects to have solid API docs

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 9:20 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> Should != Must > > Yes, I know. But I didn't want to have everyone leap into yet another > long-winded debate with no one even having mentioned that

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > I would imagine no one would object to a policy that says you cannot > have a binding vote if you have a financial interest in graduating a > podling, I would. People on the IPMC and ASF are supposed to be trustworthy out of the gate. If

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: >>> ...Furthermore, I would like to see this extended to votes on graduating or >>> retiring podlings,.. >> >> IMO

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I’m -1 on on this. The whole premise of the ASF is that it is a meritocracy and that volunteers at various “levels” of the organization have attained their status because they are trustworthy. Without this premise, the ASF falls apart. Finally, it’s not clear to me that this addresses the prob

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > Personally I would focus more on better oversight of podling and mentor > activity. The goal is to catch the occasional problem case rather than put > restrictions in place. I'm not sure how to do that though. I and others have > made many

Re: [VOTE] Accept Concerted into the Apache Incubator

I’m not sure this needs to be resolved before the polling can be accepted into the Incubator. Regards, Alan > On Oct 9, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > I have agreed to be a mentor to Concerted and I think it is an > interesting idea. I am inclined to vote for it entering the incuba

Re: [VOTE] Accept Concerted into the Apache Incubator

+1 - binding Regards, Alan > On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: > > Hi all, > > Following the discussion about Concerted I would like to call a vote for > accepting Concerted as a new incubator project. > > The proposal text is included below, and available on the wiki: > > http

Re: Require projects to have solid API docs

Should != Must Regards, Alan > On Oct 11, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > Per [1], "Apache projects should provide sufficient documentation [… so that > … ] users can both make use of our software freely”. > > And: "users of Apache software should be able to find our software, lear

Re: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

> On Mar 22, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > My preference would be to ask pTLP advocates "which public list" they want to > use. Creating a new public mailing list is an option, though the low > visibility of a new list makes such an option less than ideal and the usual > argument

Re: [APPROVE] The March MRQL report

Crikey, this went into my junk mail folder. Signed off. Regards, Alan > On Mar 7, 2015, at 6:04 AM, Leonidas Fegaras wrote: > > Dear MRQL mentors, > This is a reminder to approve the MRQL report. > Please edit it and approve it at: > > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2015 > > Thanks

Re: [VOTE] Accept Apache Singa as incubator project

+1 Regards, Alan > On Mar 10, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Thejas Nair wrote: > > The Singa Incubator Proposal document has been updated based on > feedback in the proposal thread. > > This vote is proposing the inclusion of Apache Singa as incubator project. > The vote will run for at least 72 hours. >

Re: [VOTE] Accept CommonsRDF into the Apache Incubator

+1 - binding Regards, Alan > On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney > wrote: > > The VOTE is therefore as follows > > [ ] +1 I am happy with Commons RDF entering incubation > [ ] +0/-0 I am neither yay or nay > [ ] -1 I am not happy with this proposal because >

Re: Dudes: save some of your pTLP energy and review this friggin' release!!!!

t; > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:20 AM Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: > >> Pretty please? :D >> >> >> Regards, >> Alan >> >>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Leonidas Fegaras >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> This vote

Dudes: save some of your pTLP energy and review this friggin' release!!!!

Pretty please? :D Regards, Alan > On Feb 24, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Leonidas Fegaras wrote: > > Hello, > This vote is open for more than a week and we still need one more IPMC vote. > Could somebody help us her? > Thanks > Leonidas Fegaras > > On 02/22/2015 01:0

Re: [VOTE] Accept Apache AsterixDB in to the Incubator

+1 binding Regards, Alan > On Feb 19, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) > wrote: > > That said, I would like to propose Apache AsterixDB as an > Incubator project. I am now calling a VOTE to accept AsterixDB > into the Apache Incubator. This VOTE will run for at least 72 hours. > >

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache MRQL 0.9.4 incubating (RC2)

Ping :) Regards, Alan > On Feb 18, 2015, at 7:22 PM, Leonidas Fegaras wrote: > > Hello, > This release still needs one more IPMC vote. > (We got +1 IPMC votes from Alan Cabrera and Justin Mclean). > It would be greatly appreciated If someone could take a look > at our release and vote. > Thank

Re: [VOTE] Accept Myriad into the Apache Incubator

+1 binding Regards, Alan > On Feb 21, 2015, at 9:34 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote: > > Hello friends, > > After receiving a positive response on the discussion thread, and even a > new Mentor (Luciano), I would like to call a VOTE to accept Myriad into the > Apache Incubator. I will end the vote aft

Re: my pTLP view

> On Jan 27, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> In short, the pTLP designation is a bit too opaque > > So you mean all TLPs should have status labels? > > Might be useful...probator

Re: my pTLP view

> On Jan 27, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> ...- do away w/ the pTLP name, just make it a regular TLP... > > I don't like that, IMO pTLPs have to be explicitly flagged, to make >

Re: [DISCUSS] Solicitation for IPMC Chair nomination

> On Jan 26, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: >>> Things to keep in mind while thinking about nominating >>> yourself or others: >>> 1. This is a 6-12 months commitment that, based

Re: [DISCUSS] Solicitation for IPMC Chair nomination

> On Jan 26, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > Hi! > > after making sure that there's still an Incubator > to be managed for the next 6-12 months, I'd like > to open up a discussion thread on soliciting > nominations for the next IPMC Chair. > > Feel free to self-nominate or nomin

Re: my pTLP view

TL;DR I think this is a good idea. I thought long and hard about this during the weekend and I’ve changed my mind about this; I’ll spare you my handwringing thought processes. Some things that I personally would like to see: - do away w/ the pTLP name, just make it a regular TLP - ComDev shoul

Re: [VOTE] Recommend retirement for NPanday poddling

+1 Regards, Alan > On Jan 21, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > [ ] +1 Recommend retiring NPanday poddling from the Incubator. > [ ] +/-0 Don't care, but... > [ ] -1 Don't recommend retiring NPanday poddling from the Incubator because > ...

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

> On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:39 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < >>> bdelacre...@apache.org > wrote: How is that dif

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

d missed checking the box > for HTrace. It may not be on any specific proposal. It seems to already be > in practice. > > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: > >> Can you add your concerns to the end each of the wiki pages? >&g

Re: Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members?

> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. >> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:a...@toolazydogs.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:17 AM >> To: infrastructure-...@apache.org >> Cc

Re: Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members?

e part you looking for produces > https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/incubator > > Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. > A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation > > -----Original Message- > From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, Janu

Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members?

Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

Can you add your concerns to the end each of the wiki pages? I intend to update my proposal to clear up the apprehensions that you seem to have. You can then remove/amend your concerns from the wiki proposal. I will quickly state that “naughty lists” are not part of the mentor-reboot proposal.

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

> On Jan 19, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Chris Douglas wrote: >> ...So make a list of the IPMC members >> you believe should judge the other 90%, and submit a proposal to the >> board to start a new project. Fork the incubator > > H

Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache AsterixDB Incubator

Should be fine. Regards, Alan > On Jan 19, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Till Westmann wrote: > > Thank you. > So for we’ve added 3 slots for mentors on the proposal - I hope that’ll be > sufficient even for the relatively large number of new committers. > > Till > >> On Jan 19, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Henry

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

> On Jan 16, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > Or we could just do it > > We debated plenty. Three proposals came out of it (two if you look at mine as > the strawman it was intended to be). > > Those proposals are not mutually exclusive. > > I say record them in th

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > Hi! > > at this point we have had a few lively threads > discussing three somewhat different proposals: > #1 mentor re-boot > #2 pTLP > #3 Ross's strawman http://s.apache.org/8eS > it feels to me that all three need additional wor

Re: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > With that said, I do agree that a board report is not the appropriate venue > for the Weegee paddy wagon parade. What would be more useful and more easily > digested is a general top level opaque metric, e.g. 55% of the

Re: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > What does it mean to "didn't sign-off" does it mean they refused to sign-off > or that they simply didn't tick a box? Does it mean they didn't even read the > report or that they didn't tick a box? > > I've said it befo

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > Hi! > > at this point we have had a few lively threads > discussing three somewhat different proposals: > #1 mentor re-boot https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal

Re: [VOTE] [PROPOSAL] Accept OpenAz (Access Control Tools) into the Apache Incubator

+1 binding Regards, Alan > On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Hal Lockhart wrote: > > I call a vote to accept OpenAz as a new Incubator project. > > The proposal can be found here: > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenAZProposal > > and is included below in this email. > > Voting will remain

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating

> On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:14 PM, Byung-Gon Chun wrote: > > The Apache REEF PPMC has voted to release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating > based on the release candidate described below. Now it is the IPMC's turn > to vote. > > Here's the PPMC voting result (five binding +1 votes): > http://mail-archiv

Re: [VOTE][Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework [RE-SUBMISSION]

+1 binding Regards, Alan > On Jan 9, 2015, at 8:58 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > > +1 > > From the conversation with Marko, he intended to submit this as a formal > vote, but didn't use the regular voting template. > > Voting will remain open until at least January 15, 2015 18:00 ET. > > Ch

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > I'm not seeing how this proposal fixes the problem either. However, I do like > that this proposal doesn't move responsibility and I like that it adds some > teeth to the IPMC (e.g. removal of inactive mentors and pausing

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > +1 > > All we care about is that the podling has an active mentor who knows when to > ask for support and gets that support when they need it. Following that statement to a logical conclusion, all podlings need to make

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 8, 2015, at 3:03 AM, jan i wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com>> wrote: > >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:46 AM, jan i > >> wrote: >>> >>> On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Al

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > What has changed in the > last year and a half is that we no longer ignore it when podlings fail to > report -- we put them into "monthly" and review the situation month to month. > Between that and requiring Mentor checkoff, we'll notice

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > > One wording that could confuse people: > "after which they are removed from the PMC unless they are committers." > > If someone already a PMC, he or she is also a committer. In ASF a > committer is someone who can commit code into the repos

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> The Incubator has made important progress. I want to quickly acknowledge that we have made immense, immense, progress thanks in no small part to our IPMC chairs over the years. A lot of hard work was done and that produc

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal > > From that page: > >People who wish to become mentors that are not in the IPM

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Upayavira wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015, at 06:46 PM, jan i wrote: >> On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> >>> >>>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >>>>

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:46 AM, jan i wrote: > > On 7 January 2015 at 19:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >>> >>> On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>>> I’ve written

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold >> mentors accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonomous authority >> du

proposal: mentor re-boot

I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold mentors accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonomous authority during releases. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal What we would gain i

Re: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator report sign-off)

On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i wrote: > On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: > >> >> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> >>> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part >>> that w

Re: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator report sign-off)

On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> >> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> >>> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part >>>

Re: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator report sign-off)

On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part > that would require us to do something with poddlings put > on hold. Unless we come up with clear exit criteria for > this new state -- I don't think we're solving any real prob

Re: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator report sign-off)

On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > I'm resending Alan's proposal with a new subject as I think it > deserves more attention. > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> ...Podlings would be required to have a

Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair

On Dec 31, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on > me beginning of 2014 it was crucial that the > position remains to be rotated among IPMC members. > As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period > was 6 month my personal bel

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On Jan 5, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> >>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>> >>> 1. get rid of IPMC altogether and move to the pTLP model >> >&

Re: [DISCUSS] Rolling shepherds?

On Dec 9, 2014, at 6:30 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > The following shepherds either did not provide, or did provide but saw no > issues to comment on within their podlings: > > - Alan Cabrera I am committed to reviewing the podlings for which I am a mentor. For other podlings, not so much. Wh

Re: pTLP, concretely

On Jan 5, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Benson Margulies >> wrote: >>> ...This scheme locates >>> that responsibility in the renamed committee, which serves the board >>> by supervisi

Re: pTLP, concretely

On Jan 5, 2015, at 6:15 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote: >> >> >> On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> wrote: >> > On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:20 AM, Benson Margulies > wrote: > > For your reading and wrangling plea

Re: Volunteer to Shepherd

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 9:32 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:33 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: >> >>> I’d like to volunteer to help out as a shepherd. >> >> Super! I hope you find the experience broadening. >

Re: pTLP, concretely

> On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:20 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > For your reading and wrangling pleasure, I offer: > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2. > > The goal of this exercise is to turn the idea of the pTLP into a > practical alternative. By 'practical', I mean: 'based on the > cons

Re: Incubator report sign-off

> On Dec 29, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > >> 3. patch the current process with starting to drop the mentors from >> the project who don't sign off. This will essentially serve >> as a heartbeat for mentors (now, in my opinion it'll quickly >>deteriorate into

Re: Incubator report sign-off

> On Dec 22, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >1. get rid of IPMC altogether and move to the pTLP model This is effectively an IPMC reboot. I don’t really see anything substantially different. >2. make this a poddling issue: if a poddling fails to hunt down ALL >t

Re: Incubator report sign-off

> On Dec 19, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > I noted in my comments on the recent Incubator board report that I am > concerned, month after month, at the number of podlings that have no mentor > sign-off at all, as well as the ones where a minority of the mentors sign-off. > > I certa

Re: [VOTE] accept SAMOA into incubator

+1 binding Regards, Alan On Dec 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Dai wrote: > Following the discussion earlier, I'm calling a vote to accept SAMOA as a > new Incubator project. > > [ ] +1 Accept SAMOA into the Incubator > [ ] +0 Indifferent to the acceptance of SAMOA > [ ] -1 Do not accept SAMOA

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Samza from the Incubator

+1 binding Regards, Alan On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Jakob Homan wrote: > [ ] +1 Graduate Apache Samza from the Incubator. > [ ] +0 Don't care. > [ ] -1 Don't graduate Apache Samza from the Incubator because ...

Re: SVN Access Rights question

I suspect that only Roman and other VPs can do this. Regards, Alan On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:23 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone know what access rights are required to be able to add a > podling to SVN here: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ > > I tried adding tamaya but

Re: Access to incubator wiki.

Ahh! Same here. The odd thing is that it seems to remember my “old” userid and so I’m able to edit the Incubator wiki pages. Regards, Alan On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:10 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Hmmm that happened to you too? > > I found that my account was missing from the wiki earlier this w

Roman or IPMC members who are VPs...

Only Roman or IPMC members who are VPs can run the commands outlined in > http://wiki.apache.org/general/Jenkins#How_do_I_get_an_account Regards, Alan On Nov 24, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Edward J. Yoon wrote: > Mentors, if incubator project can use the Jenkins, Please add fegaras and > moon to Jenk

Re: Mail command to allow marvin emails

On Nov 25, 2014, at 3:03 AM, Tim Ellison wrote: > On 24/11/14 17:39, John D. Ament wrote: >> On Mon Nov 24 2014 at 10:29:02 AM Tim Ellison wrote: >> >>> On 24/11/14 14:35, John D. Ament wrote: Does anyone know the mail command to send out to allow marvin emails to get to a list witho

Re: Incubator website guide

On Nov 24, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Following http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html, I ran 'ant' (and > also build.sh) after adding nifi to podlings.xml and added the nifi.xml > fille. It didn't produce any changed files to commit. > > Is the guide behind? Am I conf

Re: Mail command to allow marvin emails

It’s too bad that this can’t be automated when a podling is added. I have a ticket waiting in INFRA to add a REST API to Hermes to allow such a thing. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8006 Maybe people can up-vote it? :) Regards, Alan On Nov 24, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Tim Ellison w

Re: Proposals - wiki required?

org/guides/proposal.html#formulating > > On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 9:42:28 AM Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: > >> >> On Nov 22, 2014, at 6:16 PM, John D. Ament wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> The current way the proposal page is written, the wiki for pr

Re: Proposals - wiki required?

On Nov 22, 2014, at 6:16 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > The current way the proposal page is written, the wiki for proposals is > optional. I don't think this is the case any longer, since it looks like > we request that all proposals get put there first. Other IPMC member’s strongly hel

Re: Report Timeline & Report Manager for December

On Nov 22, 2014, at 7:16 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > I know this is a few days early, but considering we have a few > holidays popping up I wanted to send it earlier than later. If we get > any new podlings in the next few days we can add them to the report. > > I'm wondering if anyone's willin

How do reporting groups get assigned?

How do reporting groups get assigned to podlings? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kylin into the Apache Incubator

+1 binding Regards, Alan On Nov 20, 2014, at 2:31 PM, Luke Han wrote: > Following the discussion earlier in the thread: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201411.mbox/%3ccakmqrob22+n+r++date33f3pcpyujhfoeaqrms3t-udjwk6...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > I would like to call

Re: [VOTE] accept NiFi into the incubator

+1 - binding On Nov 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NiFiProposal has elicited a cheerful and > positive conversation, so I offer this vote. > > Vote will be open for the usual 72 hours ... > > Here is my [+1] -

Re: [VOTE] Apache Tamaya for Incubation

+1 Regards, Alan On Nov 10, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Anatole Tresch wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks for the feedback thus far on the Tamaya proposal. Based on prior > discussion, I'd like to start the vote for Tamaya to be accepted as a new > incubator project. > > The proposal can be found here > htt

Re: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache MetaModel from the Incubator

+1 - binding On Nov 13, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > Hi All, > > The Apache MetaModel community has wrapped up the VOTE to propose for > graduation from Apache incubator. The VOTE passed with result: > 9 binding +1s > zero 0s > zero -1s > (http://bit.ly/1u8n8eo) > > Apache MetaMod

Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Nov 2014 ([ppmc])

> On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> On 27/10/14 14:15, Marvin wrote: >>> Dear podling, >>> >>> This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache

Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Nov 2014 ([ppmc])

On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > On 27/10/14 14:15, Marvin wrote: >> Dear podling, >> >> This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator >> PMC. >> It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your >> quarterly >> board report

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 0.7.0-incubating

I ran rat and found that there are a number of Markdown, HTML, Scala archetype files that don’t seem to have the proper license header. Regards, Alan On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Robert Metzger wrote: > Hi all, > > This is our second try to release Flink 0.7.0-incubating. The last time we

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 0.7.0-incubating

This doesn’t seem to exist. Does that matter? Regards, Alan On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Robert Metzger wrote: > The staging repository for this release can be found at: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1016 > ---

Re: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Drill from the Incubator

+1 - binding Regards, Alan On Oct 22, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Tomer Shiran wrote: >> [ ] +1 Graduate Apache Drill from the Incubator. >> [ ] +0 Don't care. >> [ ] -1 Don't graduate Apache Drill from the Incubator because.. .

Re: [VOTE] Accept Taverna into the Apache Incubator

+1 - binding I assume that you mean Taverna instead of Lens. Regards, Alan On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > Following the discussion earlier in the thread: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg45241.html > > I would like to call a Vote for acce

Re: [VOTE] Accept Lens into the Apache Incubator (earlier called Grill)

+1 - binding Regards, Alan On Oct 6, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Sharad Agarwal wrote: > Following the discussion earlier in the thread > https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg45208.html > I would like to call a Vote for accepting Lens as a new incubator project. > > The proposal

Re: October reporting

I'm happy to do it again. Regards, Alan On Oct 4, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Hi! > > I am just wondering if this month I'll be as lucky > as the previous few and could rely on excellent > work of report manager volunteers to fill out the > October report. > > As usual, the mo

76 character widths for board reports?

Is this really necessary? Speaking as one who actually coded on punched cards on an octal based computer, I feel indignant that you young whippersnappers don't appreciate the hard won freedoms us older coders have brought to the younger generations. Regards, Alan

Re: September report

Filled in a fair bit. I can’t get back to fill in the rest of the bits until later this afternoon. Regards, Alan On Sep 8, 2014, at 5:45 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > Busy night last night. Hoping to do it this morning. > > > Regards, > Alan > > On Sep 7, 2014

Re: September report

Busy night last night. Hoping to do it this morning. Regards, Alan On Sep 7, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> Also, if there's anybody planning on creating >> a summary -- please let me know. Otherwise >> I'll do by the

Re: Tooling friendly incubator report

ing for incubator as we are for board reports, etc. > > Just a thought, > > Upayavira > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> >> On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Marvin H

Re: Tooling friendly incubator report

On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > >> So how about creating the web form but having it generate text which can be >> inserted into the wiki template? That would allow us to tune the web >> interface without committing to

Re: Tooling friendly incubator report

On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> >> On Aug 24, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera >>> wrote: >>>

Re: Tooling friendly incubator report

On Aug 24, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>> but its just my opinion, and if incubator is used to work differently, I >>> will not be the one to propose big changes. >> >> This is pr

September 2014 Incubator report timeline

September 2014 Incubator report timeline: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2014 Wed September 03 -- Podling reports due by end of day Sun September 07 -- Shepherd reviews due by end of day Sun September 07 -- Summary due by end of day Tue September 09 -- Mentor signoff due

Re: Tooling friendly incubator report

On Aug 24, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: >> Here's a first sketch of a YAML based incubator report > > I suggest that those who wish to refactor how the Incubator report is > done first tak

Re: Tooling friendly incubator report

gt; > - Brett > > On 25 Aug 2014, at 5:47 am, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> Here's a first sketch of a YAML based incubator report >> >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReportFormat >> >> I'm writing some tooling for editing and report gene

Re: Tooling friendly incubator report

On Aug 24, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>> but its just my opinion, and if incubator is used to work differently, I >>> will not be the one to propose big changes. >> >> This is pr

  1   2   3   4   5   >