Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > ...There could be issues down the road which means that this option is > withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were > later disappointed... Same here, having one willing podling

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

There are clearly some issues to work out. These boil down to a) technical. IPMC doesn't need to vote on that. Greg and Dan and Infra can vote by doing or not. b) policy details about who gets which permissions and when. I think that these can be solved by discussion and consensus and don't

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

On 11/09/2016 01:00 AM, Christopher wrote: > Sorry if these questions have already been answered, but I'm still a bit > confused, so if anybody can answer I'd be grateful. > > Why is GA for podlings being considered before GA for TLPs? Or, is GitHub > already generally available to TLPs, and I

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

Sorry if these questions have already been answered, but I'm still a bit confused, so if anybody can answer I'd be grateful. Why is GA for podlings being considered before GA for TLPs? Or, is GitHub already generally available to TLPs, and I missed that? If I didn't miss anything, what are the

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

I'm +1 to this for OpenWhisk. I'm -1 to this as a general availability. There could be issues down the road which means that this option is withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were later disappointed. Niall On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Chris Mattmann

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 PM Sam Ruby wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament >> wrote: >> > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

+1 to both in principle (yay), but with admin access not initially given to podling committers; as that could encourage "business as usual" for adding friends as committers without a vote. So I agree that the transition of the existing repositories need to be handled well. On 7 Nov 2016 10:23

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote: >... > > As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see > > podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors. > > That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the >

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 PM Sam Ruby wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see > > answered to be able to move forward on this. > > > > - Who

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see > answered to be able to move forward on this. > > - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL. > Specifically, when the

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see answered to be able to move forward on this. - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL. Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator, I expect that the "OpenWhisk" organization be handed over to

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: > I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP hurdle. > Has that been resolved? LDAP is tens of hours worth of work - total. And I volunteered to do the bulk of the initial effort. Frankly, it is more

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

Reading the other thread on this it seems it has not yet. Let me know if any external to infra help is wanted. Thanks. On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 16:29 Phil Sorber wrote: > I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP > hurdle. Has that been resolved? > > On

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP hurdle. Has that been resolved? On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 15:24 Chris Mattmann wrote: > Hi, > > As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has > requested to use GitHub as its primary

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

It does, Joe, but the IPMC needs to decide whether to even *ask* ... It is an entirely reasonable position to say that focusing primary development at GitHub could hurt some aspect of ASF-style community building, and (thus) the IPMC does not want to allow that. Infra will start with OpenWhisk

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

With regard to the second question I hope the ultimate decision still rests with Greg. This idea is fairly new and some baby steps are in order before opening the floodgates. IMO On Monday, November 7, 2016, Chris Mattmann wrote: > Hi, > > As some of you may have seen the

[DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

Hi, As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra Admin has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it. I ask now: 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk? 2. Is the IPMC OK with this