Hi,
> Yes, we should start recommending your approach.
I think the IPMC need to decide as a whole on that first. Perhaps call a vote?
> I am actually for this as normal course and instituting the “pTLP” as the new
> normal as it is actually makes the PPMC more like a TLP from the start.
And
Hi Myrle,
Yes, we should start recommending your approach. I am actually for this as
normal course and instituting the “pTLP” as the new normal as it is actually
makes the PPMC more like a TLP from the start.
Given our current interpretation of rules that An Official Apache Release
requires 3
Hey all,
I've only heard positive feedback on this proposal. It doesn't solve all
our problems, but it would provide a path around some of the bureaucracy.
Would the other mentors be willing to bring this suggestion to their
podlings? Especially the "young" ones who still need releases outside
Greg,
thank you for taking the time to elaborate. I'm afraid I still don't
understand.
I understand that this is how it's currently set up. But these are our
rules, we can change them. There's no law involved here, right?
The way I see it: One problem we're trying to solve is too many people in
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.
I personally don't know the impact of that statement either. Sometimes
opinion in a report and a call to action is
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:04 AM Lars Francke wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:05 PM Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:00 AM Lars Francke
> > wrote:
> > >...
> >
> > > As far as I know every member can become IPMC member. So if we change
> the
> > > rules that every member vote
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:05 PM Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:00 AM Lars Francke
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > As far as I know every member can become IPMC member. So if we change the
> > rules that every member vote is binding (whether or not they are in the
> > IPMC) people wouldn't
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:00 AM Lars Francke wrote:
>...
> As far as I know every member can become IPMC member. So if we change the
> rules that every member vote is binding (whether or not they are in the
> IPMC) people wouldn't need to join the club.
>
The legal structure passes through the
If only some people are like me they joined to support a specific podling
by giving their +1 on a vote. I did the same, then went silent for a year
or so and am only now starting to get interested in the Incubator workings
again.
Maybe if we could change the requirements on binding votes for
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:33 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>
> And most probably do not participate. Would asking for those 100 odd
> people to be removed come across as friendly?
>
I'd be +1 on removing them. a.) While kindness towards our fellow PMC
members is important, the role of the Incubator
Hi,
> 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.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:30 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> When it was mentioned in the board report it got no comments. [1]
>
> "A large number (100+) of IPMC members are not signed up to the private
> mail
> list, each was sent emails asking them to sign up. A couple asked to be
> removed from
Hi,
> And haven't we *just* been talking about have too many cooks in the
> kitchen? Too much drive-by and bikeshedding?
I would guess that none participate in either lists but I guess we’ll find out.
> ... I see zero problem trimming a hundred people out of the IPMC. The very
> concept of
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:33 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Ask the Board to remove them. To participate on the IPMC, you should be
> subscribed to private@
>
> At first glance you would be asking to remove yourself btw :-)
>
hahaha... look, rather than glance :-) ... I've been subscribed
Hi,
> Ask the Board to remove them. To participate on the IPMC, you should be
> subscribed to private@
At first glance you would be asking to remove yourself btw :-)
However I assume some IPMC members use lists.apache.org or perhaps are listed
under a different email (which is your case I
Ask the Board to remove them. To participate on the IPMC, you should be
subscribed to private@
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 15:19 Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> Aren't podlings still required to subscribe to general@incubator?
>
> Hopefully at the very least their mentors are. Perhaps that would
Hi,
>> Aren't podlings still required to subscribe to general@incubator?
Hopefully at the very least their mentors are. Perhaps that would be good to
check as well?
101 IPMCs members out of 295 are not signed up to the incubator private list.
Easier this year I tried to improve that my
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 14:54, Myrle Krantz wrote:
> Aren't podlings still required to subscribe to general@incubator?
Whimsy could check if all PPMC members are subscribed to general.
Should it?
If so, please raise an enhancement request via JIRA.
S.
Hey Justin,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:33 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> How do we make podling aware they can do this? Obvious people who follow
> this list may know, and we can ask mentors to pass it on to their podling
> lists, on document on the website and perhaps mention it in Dave’s welcome
>
I would consider it a mentor responsibility, just like any other advise on
the way towards graduation. There could be explicit mention in the maturity
assessment / checklist.
--
sent from mobile
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 11:33 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > But my proposal to move towards
Hi,
> But my proposal to move towards offering early feedback on
> releases works with or without this change.
+1
How do we make podling aware they can do this? Obvious people who follow this
list may know, and we can ask mentors to pass it on to their podling lists, on
document on the
Dave,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:30 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
> The IPMC could consider some changes to the Incubator rules. (As proposed
> mostly by Roy on private lists.)
>
> Allow the VOTE thread to be only on the dev@ list with 0 or 1 mentor vote
> required. As long as the DISCLAIMER exists
+1
I think this proposal could help a lot with how feedback is perceived by
podlings!
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:51 PM Myrle Krantz wrote:
> Some podlings want or need feedback on their releases before they are ready
> to make official Apache releases. They want to discuss releases that are
>
Hi,
> Allow the VOTE thread to be only on the dev@ list with 0 or 1 mentor vote
> required. As long as the DISCLAIMER exists then the pooling release is good.
>
> Once completed the podling sends the vote thread to general@ with [REVIEW]
> (or [DISCUSS]). This allows the IPMC to review and
The IPMC could consider some changes to the Incubator rules. (As proposed
mostly by Roy on private lists.)
Allow the VOTE thread to be only on the dev@ list with 0 or 1 mentor vote
required. As long as the DISCLAIMER exists then the pooling release is good.
Once completed the podling sends the
Hi,
Nice idea. JFYI - This already happens, just not in a formal way, as I often
get emails to check podlings releases before they bring them to the IPMC.
> I encourage reviewers to review a release candidate, and vote, as early as
> possible in the 72 hour voting period. I also encourage them
This change would be useful.
As a release manager of a podling, the most disheartening thing is latency. The
usual practice is a 72 hour PPMC release vote, followed by a 72 hour IPMC vote,
one of which will cross a weekend, so a negative vote on the last day of the
IPMC vote adds at least a
Motivation:
Some podlings want or need feedback on their releases before they are ready
to make official Apache releases. They want to discuss releases that are
not yet ready for a VOTE, or that they are not sure they are ready for a
vote. They may wish to make an early release outside of the
28 matches
Mail list logo
