On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 07:43, David P Grove wrote:
>
> Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk podling voting thread [1], our only
> mentor has already voted +1, but after a week we still need two more IPMC
> votes to be able to proceed.
>
> Please help
>
As of sometime over the past day or
Craig,
replies inline,
> Apologies if these comments cross other discussions. It's hard to keep
> track of all the threads that have forked from the original discussion.
I'm struggling to keep up too :-/
> This is really sad, because in most of these cases the mentors have not
> voted.
> On the one side we have lengthy discussions about non-mentors from
> resisting to interfere, but on the other hand podlings are begging for
> such "interference".
> Guess there are always two sides of the discussion.
I politely disagree with you Chris.
What I raised was that cold
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 20:01, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> Kevin,
>
> Can you explain what checking you did to justify your vote?
>
> This is important so that others can know what has already been done.
IMO the +1 ought to be added to the vote thread, not here.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 8:02 AM
Kevin,
Can you explain what checking you did to justify your vote?
This is important so that others can know what has already been done.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 8:02 AM Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
> On 2/26/2019 8:20 AM, David P Grove wrote:
> >
> > Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk
On 2/26/2019 8:20 AM, David P Grove wrote:
>
> Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk podling voting thread [1], our only
> mentor has already voted +1, but after a week we still need two more IPMC
> votes to be able to proceed.
>
> Please help
>
Sorry, I was not aware of that issue. I'm
Hmmm ... this is really odd ...
On the one side we have lengthy discussions about non-mentors from resisting to
interfere, but on the other hand podlings are begging for such "interference".
Guess there are always two sides of the discussion.
And I have to admit that for a short time I was
"general";
Subject: Re: Incubator release votes
Craig Russell wrote on 02/25/2019 09:15:56 PM:
>
> To me, the biggest issue with incubating releases has been lack of
> engagement by mentors for release voting. Many examples from history
> have podlings begging for some
Craig Russell wrote on 02/25/2019 09:15:56 PM:
>
> To me, the biggest issue with incubating releases has been lack of
> engagement by mentors for release voting. Many examples from history
> have podlings begging for someone, anyone, to review a release that
> has already received review in
Hi Mick,
I appreciate your taking time to document what you have experienced in the
incubator.
Apologies if these comments cross other discussions. It's hard to keep track of
all the threads that have forked from the original discussion.
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 4:35 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
10 matches
Mail list logo
