Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-29 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > ...Here is a patch: > > https://paste.apache.org/Ersh > > If no one formally lodges a -1, I will claim lazy consensus and apply this > patch... Here's my formal -1 ;-) I don't object to your patch but for

Re: Allowed Champions on podlings

2016-03-24 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:34 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:25 PM Jakob Homan wrote: > >> So, it's been a week with no objections. Craig's concern could also >> be addressed by allowing Officers to join the IPMC in the same way >>

Re: Allowed Champions on podlings

2016-03-24 Thread John D. Ament
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:25 PM Jakob Homan wrote: > So, it's been a week with no objections. Craig's concern could also > be addressed by allowing Officers to join the IPMC in the same way > that Members can. > > I'd like to see this question resolved so that we progress

Re: Allowed Champions on podlings

2016-03-24 Thread Jakob Homan
So, it's been a week with no objections. Craig's concern could also be addressed by allowing Officers to join the IPMC in the same way that Members can. I'd like to see this question resolved so that we progress the Airflow proposal to a vote with Chris Riccomini as Champion (VP of Samza).

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-24 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Mar 22, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. Or rather, reduce > the champion’s role to nominating a project for incubation. Once the project > has entered incubation, the champion’s role ends. > ++1

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-23 Thread Henri Yandell
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > Right now, Apache's rules are so complex that we are all in perpetual > violation. You can't even know what all the rules are! > First, your podling was not part of our charter nor our licensing agreement so I

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-22 Thread John D. Ament
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:35 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Julian Hyde > wrote: > >> If you want to simplify policy, get rid of

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-22 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: >> If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. >> Or rather, reduce the champion’s role to nominating a project for

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-22 Thread Shane Curcuru
Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 3/22/16 4:56 PM: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: >> If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. >> Or rather, reduce the champion’s role to nominating a project for incubation. >> Once the project has entered

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-22 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. > Or rather, reduce the champion’s role to nominating a project for incubation. > Once the project has entered incubation, the champion’s role ends. +1000 to the

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-22 Thread Julian Hyde
If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. Or rather, reduce the champion’s role to nominating a project for incubation. Once the project has entered incubation, the champion’s role ends. While Calcite was in incubation no one (including the champion) had a clue what the role of

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-22 Thread Craig Russell
> On Mar 22, 2016, at 11:25 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Russell >> wrote: >>> There is a sorta technical reason for

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-22 Thread John D. Ament
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Russell > wrote: > > There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the > PMC > > of the sponsor. > > > > I’d expect the

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-22 Thread Tim Williams
is this just personal catharsis? On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Russell > wrote: >> There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the PMC >> of the

Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

2016-03-22 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Russell wrote: > There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the PMC > of the sponsor. > > I’d expect the Champion to subscribe to the private@ list and to have > binding votes on podling releases. These

Re: Allowed Champions on podlings

2016-03-21 Thread Craig Russell
There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the PMC of the sponsor. I’d expect the Champion to subscribe to the private@ list and to have binding votes on podling releases. These both require PMC membership. The alternative is to create two different “exceptions” that

Re: Allowed Champions on podlings

2016-03-20 Thread Ted Dunning
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > In the meantime, I don't think the present rule offers enough value to > justify > its complexity. > +1

Re: Allowed Champions on podlings

2016-03-20 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Williams wrote: > Without judging the goodness of it... I'd just point out that > currently in the non-Member Officer case, they must be a member of the > Sponsoring PMC. I thought that was true of Members as well, btw, but > thought

RE: Allowed Champions on podlings

2016-03-19 Thread Jean-Baptiste Onofré
+1 RegardsJB  Sent from my Samsung device Original message From: "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> Date: 18/03/2016 01:33 (GMT+01:00) To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Allowed Champions on podlings All, It was recently pointed out

Re: Allowed Champions on podlings

2016-03-19 Thread Tim Williams
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:33 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > It was recently pointed out that some of our docs are a bit inconsistent > around who can champion a candidate podling. > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Champion >

Allowed Champions on podlings

2016-03-19 Thread John D. Ament
All, It was recently pointed out that some of our docs are a bit inconsistent around who can champion a candidate podling. http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Champion http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Champion In the former,