the vote on the general list.
The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over.
2. This vote was never summarized.
If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to where
I can find the email with the relevant information.
Thanks,
John
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:44 PM Ross Gardler
. To
close the matter proactively, I'll take the liberty of extracting the
summary and presenting it here:
IPMC +1
Ross Gardler
Christian Grobmeier
Jan Iversen
Justin Mclean
PPMC +1
Tim Barham
Community +1
Arzhan Kinzhalin
Ripple community: congrats on your 0.9.30 release!
Marvin
] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence
process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general
thread.
I'm trying really hard
As an immediate start to having a tool to support mentors and TLPs you might
want to consider providing a Rat service. Rat is already very useful.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Daniel Grunomailto:humbed...@apache.org
Sent: 8/4/2015 4:15 AM
To:
Since I +1d Romans comment I also want to draw attention to your valuable
observation on the topic:
A lot of companies seem to view any friction (e.g. actually complying
with policies that put community over code) as political overhead
that makes joining the foundation undesirable.
+1 to that
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are accusing
ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which is grossly
unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very true at IPMC
level today.
+1000
-Original Message-
From:
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
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 that
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
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
: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
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
Wow this thread has got out of control. I'm not even going to pretend that I
have tried to read all this while at OSCON (though I have skimmed much of it).
Instead I want to make one statement and make one request of the Ignite mentors.
First the request:
Can active mentors please make a clear
To: d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30
Vote results are:
IPMC votes: 2
Ross Gardler
Christian Grobmeier
PPMC votes: 1
Tim Barham
Other votes: 1
Arzhan Kinzhalin
Thanks!
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobme
Thank you Justin - very useful. We'll correct the issues you spotted in SVN in
prep for the next release. I agree they are non-blocking.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justinmcl...@me.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 3:42 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re:
Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:29 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream
integration binary artifacts
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH
a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
There is nothing preventing clearly identifiable non-release artifacts
available to the general public.
The Releases Policy page forbids it explicitly:
During the process of developing
People wanting to use snapshot releases can be expected to jump through hoops
to install those snapshots. NuGet, like all package management solutions, is a
convenience not a requirement. People can still manually download and install
libraries manually. Putting snapshots in public
There is nothing preventing clearly identifiable non-release artifacts
available to the general public. Many projects make automated nightly builds
available for example.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org
Sent:
It's not ComDev is press@
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org
Sent: 5/29/2015 7:11 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Blog policy for poddlings
This is all very much
+1000
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org
Sent: 5/19/2015 5:18 AM
To: Incubator Generalmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: You know what... Apache is just too complicated.
Hi Stefan,
On Mon, May 18,
Not sure if your concern is diversity or scale, so I'll address both
separately. If your concern is something else please be more explicit.
Graduation does not require diversity of the PMC. It requires that the project
be run according to the Apache Way which includes being open to any
: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:04 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
As for going straight to TLP I agree. Sam did say this was a possibility but
I believe he (rightly so
I've often wondered why we don't open source more of the infra code. Maybe this
is the reason.
Perhaps we need a new brand for such projects. Something like Apache Foo
(Infra). This would be similar to the (Incubator) branding. We could even
adopt some of the same policies (e.g. no press
It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely do
not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention simply
ridiculous) if the foundation not being able to use Apache software because we
don't pay for development and might want to submit a patch
+1, that's what I was trying to convey.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 7:05 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard
Infra already supports Whimsy so having a TLP is irrelevant in that respect
(although on reason Sam is doing this is because infra expressed a concern
about maintaining a service that only had Sam working on it).
Ross
-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent:
On Apr 13, 2015 12:16 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Pivotal are asking me to agree to an evaluation license which I
cannot view before I sign up. So I have to review the privacy policy first.
Pivotal's privacy policy goes a *long* way beyond the point I am
Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 12:38 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Pivotal are asking me to agree to an evaluation license which I
Where hand over the Geode name also means hand over the domain name and
GitHub organizations that have rather confusingly been launched in the last few
days.
I'd also like to be able to review the source referred to in the proposal
without having to sign up to the Pivotal network - how can I
Pivotal are asking me to agree to an evaluation license which I cannot view
before I sign up. So I have to review the privacy policy first.
Pivotal's privacy policy goes a *long* way beyond the point I am comfortable
with when getting open source software (or deciding whether I want to agree
My only concern is confusion over pTLP and incubator. That's a manageable
concern but this lost is so large I fear it might keep recurring.
Just a word of caution, not an objection.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: jan imailto:j...@apache.org
Sent: 3/22/2015
1. CCLA is never used instead of an SGA, they serve different purposes. The SGA
is for a body of work that pre-exists entry into the foundation. The CCLA is an
optional document that says future work by named individuals can be contributed.
2. Yes (although secretary tries his best to CC the
Don't worry Christian. Same thing for me last month, and someone else the month
before.
Signing the report is not a replacement for actually being involved. Sounds
like you are doing a great job.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Christian
+1
See C030 on our project maturity model
http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
And some commentary on committer = someone who is committed rather than someone
who commits code https://community.apache.org/contributors/
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A
Member I would never be
able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP.
We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current
IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard
How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide?
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org
Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand
Can you please remove the requirement for 3 legally independent PMC members.
What we require is a PMC that operates as a meritocracy. This is possible even
in a monoculture PMC. It's also possible to have the independent
representatives that act in collusion.
3 independents was a useful
see that three
votes from members are required that means that all other votes don't
matter.
On Mar 2, 2015 10:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for
appropriate projects. The problem you
+1
either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not. We need to lose
these mixed messages. It seems people are still using the same ten to represent
different things.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Niclas Hedhmanmailto:nic...@hedhman.org
Sent:
, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the
only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary
below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than
. That is all.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Ok let me try again.
I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given
project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why
bother. Just make it a TLP
The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org
Sent: 2/23/2015 3:46 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Practical next steps
.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org
Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to
evaluate properly.
That's fair, but what *exactly
, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations.
Is the precise nature of what being asked recorded anywhere?
Thanks,
Roman.
-
To unsubscribe
We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to
evaluate properly.
The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for
the disruption a chair change brings to settle down and will then look forward
to helping with some experimentation (I
ComDev docs are in the CMS. All committers have write access. PMC members have
publish access.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:56 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP
+1 (and on a personal note, thank you for making possible to, once again, avoid
throwing my own hat into the ring).
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:32 PM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]
It's an *option* not the only route. Working for some but not others is just
fine.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:23 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Chris Mattmann; Jim Jagielski
Subject: Re: my pTLP view
I
And even in the strawman (at least how I wrote it) there is even less of a gap
from today's model to the pTLP proposal under discussion here.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com
Sent: 1/25/2015 12:03 PM
To:
A good mentor is a guide, not a manager.
The proposals might seem top down, but when executed correctly, they are not.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Alex Haruimailto:aha...@adobe.com
Sent: 1/23/2015 12:06 PM
To:
, 2015 2:34 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: my pTLP view
On Friday, January 23, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ross.gard...@microsoft.com'); wrote:
A good mentor is a guide, not a manager.
The proposals might seem top down
, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
All that being said, while I will (and already did two years ago)
support some experimentation with the pTLP model I still feel that an
Incubator with teeth scales better.
But we wouldn't know until we try
pTLP view
On Friday, January 23, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
As ASF member *should* know that empowering the ones doing the work is
the Apache Way. A good member who is a mentor will ensure that they
unblock anything that prevents those doing the work
What makes you think the PPMC today had more influence than the contributors to
a pushing?
Votes have been mentioned, but votes remain the same. Despite what people on
this thread are saying PPMC members do not have a binding vote. That does not
change.
Besides, the whole thing is moot
I would support it as an experiment.
I will support it because it is one of the few actionable suggestions on the
table.
My caution has been expressed elsewhere. So I'll summarize as a reminder:
1) I supported just such an experiment a couple of years ago. It didn't go well
(not disastrous,
To: Incubator Generalmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
The board do take on such an active task
I'm not sure what you
proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
The board do take on such an active task.
As someone who has been subscribed to board@apache for a long time and has
attended many monthly Board meetings
The board do take on such an active task.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Niclas Hedhmanmailto:nic...@hedhman.org
Sent: 1/21/2015 11:08 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor
proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
In the thread Incubator report sign-off I posted a mail at Mon 1/5/2015
4:34 PM, it has the following content (edited for brevity here)
Acknowledged. I apologize
It doesn't need to be in the public report.
I agree the shepherd model doesn't work here but I still maintain that doesn't
mean it can't work.
Accountability, responsibility and reward are what I believe are needed. I've
made my suggestions as to how to provide all three
Sent from my Windows
We should not be focusing on who is/is not ticking a box on a report - it's a
red herring and therefore a distraction.
We should be focusing on identifying and assisting podlings that are not in
receipt of adequate and appropriate mentoring.
There is nothing else of importance.
Microsoft
(mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
We should not be focusing on who is/is not ticking a box on a report - it's
a red herring and therefore a distraction.
We should be focusing on identifying and assisting
My strawman, which included a board like IPMC, certainly wasn't about shutting
out inconvenient IPMC members, that is simply a ridiculous a d insulting
suggestion (if it wasn't intended in that way then fine, but it sure sounds
like it).
My strawman was partly about consensus, but mostly about
I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so under their
ICLA. In other words if someone feels it does not contain significant IP then
they can commit.
Paperwork is a barrier to entry which is simply not necessary for trivial
contributions.
Sent from my Windows Phone
It's not for the IPMC to decide commons policy. If they feel another mailing
list is not appropriate that is their call.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Niclas Hedhmanmailto:nic...@hedhman.org
Sent: 1/20/2015 8:07 AM
To:
I hear what Stian is saying about the noise in Commons. If the team feel its
not going to work for them then the incubator might be the right route.
IMHO there is no reason why you couldn't be sponsored by the commons PMC.
You would still need the IPMC to clear releases but that means three
20, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:
On 20.01.2015 17:16, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so
under
their ICLA.
Really? That can't be right: one can't become the author of a change
(and therefore
As an IPMC member I have objected to this part of the report.
As a Director I have already commented on the report that this practice is
inappropriate. I will ask for that section to be struck from the minutes, we'll
see if other directors agree.
My comment on the report is:
rg: I've already
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members?
This seems to get me the IPMC members, not the PPMC members of podlings. Am I
misinterpreting the page?
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote
The Ripple community asked for a stay of execution before being moved to the
attic, as was recommended by some. This was granted in November 2014 with a
review in six months.
No board report was submitted this month and no action has been taken with
respect to the concerns I raised about
The archive is the mailing list archives and issue trackers.
If an authoritative answer is required then we have VPs who are empowered to
make operational decisions relating to policy and a Board empowered to make
community decisions (and oversee the operational side). As you say, we try not
16, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com 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
That's already in progress as part of this year's budget planning :-)
Of course this is distinct from policy. For example: Should the policy say
projects are limited to items on the infra core services list?
Ross
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Shane
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 before, I see no value in having a naughty list like this. What
I care about (with my
. Cabreramailto:l...@toolazydogs.com
Sent: 1/14/2015 11:38 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015
On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
What does it mean
Thank you for volunteering to wikify my proposal - I appreciate it.
Ross
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Please go ahead - apologies for not doing it myself I have access problems on
the incubator wiki.
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 9:22 AM
To:
Good suggestion.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Jim Jagielskimailto:j...@jagunet.com
Sent: 1/13/2015 9:33 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What is The Apache Way?
Perhaps it is time we hired a contractor
Even better suggestion. Do you want to take it up with Sally directly? (and big
thanks in advance)
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Jim Jagielskimailto:j...@jagunet.com
Sent: 1/13/2015 9:33 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
up and offering to try to heard the sheep on this
one.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:37 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What is The Apache Way?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Can you please expand on I think the answer starts with the very
skepticism of top-down governance which has in large part kept us from
having clear rules up till now.
I'm not clear on what the skepticism
Well, David, I'm afraid you are the authoritative source on the policy you use
as an example. If it's not documented and that's a problem then it's *your*
problem. You could (given even more time to volunteer to the ASF, solve it
however you like (e.g. Write the doc, ask the community to write
Marvin, it doesn't need assigning. Just step up and do it. There may not be
full consensus on the value of this, but I think there are enough people saying
it has value to mean that it has some value.
Note the overlapping mails from Jim. I think it makes a huge amount of sense to
have budget
Marvin,
Can you please expand on I think the answer starts with the very skepticism of
top-down governance which has in large part kept us from having clear rules up
till now.
I'm not clear on what the skepticism is that you refer to as these threads
have indicated that there are at least two
So I link to a document and say it contains the list of immutable items,
acknowledge it is merely a signpost, and request contributions.
Your response that's not good enough, h
Marvin you undertook to do the release requirements doc. You did huge amounts
of work on it. All that is
+1, I'll repeat one a little my previous mail and say patches welcome (as
long as they keep the document simple - remember, it's a signpost document not
a discussion or detail document - the discussion/detail documents should be
linked from this one).
+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.
Ross
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@apache.org]
Sent:
pTLP adds a great deal of overhead to the board unless there is a review
process somewhere else. I've posted on this before so will not repeat here
beyond summarizing as moving responsibility for the problem does not fix the
problem.
I'm not seeing how this proposal fixes the problem either.
Chip is correct. The tools we use in board meetings make it easy for us to see
how many PMC members in a TLP resolution are members. If there are not enough
we will sometimes put the project on an informal watch list (as well as
ensuring appropriate people from the PMC go on the members watch
8, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com 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
WTF? There have been presentations about the apache way at every ApacheCon for
about 15 years (twice in most years). I personally give 5-10 such presentations
a year (sometimes public sometimes not). I'm sure many others here do the same.
The Apache Way is really simple. There are very few
, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Chip is correct. The tools we use in board meetings make it easy for
us to see how many PMC members in a TLP resolution are members. If
there are not enough we will sometimes put the project on an informal
watch list (as well
, January 8, 2015 9:25 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What is The Apache Way?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
WTF? There have been presentations about the apache way at every
ApacheCon for about 15 years (twice
, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
top down rules you describe below - as you seem to be implying that
should not exist in the Apache Way apart from a few immutable areas and
I agree.
But what are the few immutable areas? Why isn’t there a link to a page that
lists them
It's process vs. culture. We shouldn't get hung up on process.
Our bylaws (as a foundation) dictate that the board set the formal policies.
This is pretty much a requirement of the way we have to be structured to get
501c(3) status. Someone needs to be accountable. So, yes, the board votes on
for you
•Life in Open Source Communities
•Open Source enables Open Innovation
•About: Apache - The Foundation, The Way, The Projects
•Managing Community Open Source Brands
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler (MS
Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 1:52 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
But the board is not responsible for any actions resulting from those
of feedback from the board, I'll do this one
and then wait for others to chime in (Benson?).
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
This proposal is not necessarily flawed, but it is incomplete.
Couldn't agree more. But! The whole point is to try our
, I'll do this one
and then wait for others to chime in (Benson?).
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
This proposal is not necessarily flawed, but it is incomplete.
Couldn't agree more. But! The whole point is to try our best to get
101 - 200 of 757 matches
Mail list logo
