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
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
>>
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
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).
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
+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
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
>
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,
21 matches
Mail list logo