>
>
> From: Dmitriy Pavlov
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:46:09 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy
> general@ subs check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" t
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:07 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> a) Asking PMC members if they want to step down from the PMC if they
> seem to be inactive for a long time
>
> b) Forcibly removing PMC members that the PMC considers inactive
>
> IMO a) is fine if a PMC wan
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:41 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> ...inactive PMC members are not a problem
> (Apache culture is heavily designed to make this work) and they could be an
> asset in the future. So removing the inactive members is actually a slight
> negative to the project...
I think it's
> The standard response to this would be a question in return. Instead of
> "remove inactive members and add new ones" why not just "add new ones".
wires crossed and not IPMC (yet), but I agree with this rationale.
Avoid the loaded topic. focus on the important one.
--
Dmitriy,
I don't think that you got a real answer to your section question.
The standard response to this would be a question in return. Instead of
"remove inactive members and add new ones" why not just "add new ones".
The point of this question is that inactive PMC members are not a problem
(A
Drive by opinion here, since one of the topics is about expiring "merit"
On one hand, you want to encourage participation and people being one
of NNN where NNN are inactive is demotivating
On one hand, you want to immortalize merit, but is an incubator wiki
pile-on indicative of merit?
On one hand
Hi,
So I took a look at all the IPMC members not subscribed to the private list and
looked at how active they are aver the last year:
- 7 sent one email to the dev list.
- 7 sent a couple of emails to the list
- 4 sent a few more than that (but less than a dozen)
- 83 had no activity
Of their em
Hi,
> Justin, one more question, are Default Guidelines, you've prepared some
> time ago, applicable only for projects under incubation or it is inherited
> 'as is' to TLP?
There were for podlings as they graduation to TLP, so apply to both. They were
created, as it’s no longer suggested that pr
Hi -
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 6, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> 1) Removal question and its allowance in general: this question asked
>> during every talk I gave related to ASF. My fellows ask me if someone can
>> remove Committer or PMCs. Some folks think it is possi
Hi Justin, Daniel, Thank you for your answer.
Justin, one more question, are Default Guidelines, you've prepared some
time ago, applicable only for projects under incubation or it is inherited
'as is' to TLP?
чт, 7 мар. 2019 г. в 00:18, Justin Mclean :
> Hi,
>
> > 1) Removal question and its all
Hi,
> 1) Removal question and its allowance in general: this question asked
> during every talk I gave related to ASF. My fellows ask me if someone can
> remove Committer or PMCs. Some folks think it is possible by the vote of
> PMC.
The PMC may vote on it but only the board can remove a PMC mem
Hi Daniel,
There are two independent questions here.
1) Removal question and its allowance in general: this question asked
during every talk I gave related to ASF. My fellows ask me if someone can
remove Committer or PMCs. Some folks think it is possible by the vote of
PMC. They refer to docs I'
On 3/6/19 9:08 PM, Dmitriy Pavlov wrote:
Hi Ross,
Thank you for your reply. Apache Ignite PMCs do not support this idea, so
inactive PMCs will be still there.
But still, it is not clear for me in general, why following
projects/guidelines contains removal procedure for Committer PMC:
- https://
___
> From: Dmitriy Pavlov
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:46:09 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy
> general@ subs check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling
> On Mar 6, 2019, at 7:59 AM, sebb wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:53, Myrle Krantz wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:49 PM Daniel Gruno wrote:
>>
>>> Or put differently; why would we care that someone is inactive on the
>>> IPMC? Are we short on bytes on the LDAP server and need t
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:53, Myrle Krantz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:49 PM Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
> > Or put differently; why would we care that someone is inactive on the
> > IPMC? Are we short on bytes on the LDAP server and need to conserve
> > space? ;). It should make no difference i
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:49 PM Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Or put differently; why would we care that someone is inactive on the
> IPMC? Are we short on bytes on the LDAP server and need to conserve
> space? ;). It should make no difference if there are inactive members of
> the IPMC or not.
>
Have yo
19 4:46:09 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs
check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release
candidates))
I absolutely agree with Greg Stein. I can't find any single reason
Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:46:09 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy
general@ subs check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ...
release candidates))
I absolutely agree with Greg Stein. I can't
__
> From: Greg Stein
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 10:1Let's 9 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy
> general@ subs check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ...
> relea
_____
> From: Greg Stein
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 10:19 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy
> general@ subs check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling
> ... release candidates))
>
>
Stein
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 10:19 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy
general@ subs check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ...
release candidates))
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ross G
+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 that
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
> a
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 this
formal releases.
Ross
From: Craig Russell
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 7:48 PM
To: Incubator
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy
general@ subs check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ..
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 t
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 podlings
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
vote/rel
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 n
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.
Podlin
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 Mentor,
Greg,
Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers?
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:55 AM Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb wrote:
> > >
> > > > O
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a sym
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem
> > either. We have inactive IPMC members w
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem
> either. We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later
> if a community wants to join t
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem
> > either. We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later
> > if a community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave and
> > th
Hi,
> I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem either.
> We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later if a
> community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave and then
> join again.
Some context, over 300 projects have gone throu
Lots to distill here...
> On Mar 1, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for taking to time to distill this.
>
>> Many PMCs contain what could be called inactive PMC members. The concern is
>> if that makes any difference or impedes the active IPMC members. I’m not
>> su
Hi,
Thanks for taking to time to distill this.
> Many PMCs contain what could be called inactive PMC members. The concern is
> if that makes any difference or impedes the active IPMC members. I’m not sure
> how inactive IPMC members are impacting the functioning of the IPMC.
I also don’t think
Hi -
> On Mar 1, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> On 3/1/2019 5:12 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>> The Board isn't gonna worry about something like that.
>> I wasn’t expecting the board to say anything re that, but the IPMC could of.
Many PMCs contain what could be called inactive PMC
41 matches
Mail list logo
