[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Dave Fisher closed INCUBATOR-248.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Fix is confirmed
> Incubation Overview page not found (404 error)
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17000851#comment-17000851
]
Bertrand Delacretaz commented on INCUBATOR-248:
---
That part of the website is still
Xiangdong Huang created INCUBATOR-248:
-
Summary: Incubation Overview page not found (404 error)
Key: INCUBATOR-248
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-248
Project: Incubator
On 3 February 2012 01:13, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is
the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and
whatnot, but are
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We
Hey Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.
I was in sort of concurrence as well.
I think what you guys are
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.
While I agree that in
Hey Bill,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence
I believe there is a minor typo below:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
or...). In particular, when problems arise
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or
On 2/3/2012 4:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
playing a role much like legal or
On 3 February 2012 23:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having
Isn't there also something along the lines of what's called culpable
deniability? Since podlings may be in states where their offerings
might not be as legal as TLPs (licensing issues, trademark/branding
issues, etc.), is it not more convenient for them to be relegated to
an area specifically
Hey Greg,
First off, thanks for commenting on this. My
replies below:
On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 21:22, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Bill,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
...
VP
Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break
this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
Anyways, just one commment;
On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
I can easily see a
Hey Bill,
On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:25 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break
this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
Sorry I have a big mouth :) Thanks for breaking it down.
Comments below.
On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of
our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing
is the following:
You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps
a
Hey Bill,
On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:33 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of
our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing
is the following:
You
On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working
optimally, then why have him/her?
Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to
revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it.
Hey Bill,
On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working
optimally, then why have him/her?
Because when the process needs revision, and it will,
To: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
Cc: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Bill,
On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J
2, 2012 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Bill,
On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are
working
optimally, then why have him
Hey folks,
I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction. I think
there's actually a lot of work to do to iron out how to reorganize
things. Before digging in, I suggest we abstract out a little bit to
see if we have consensus on the overall goals and desired end state
before
I like this general direction as well; seems much more manageable. +1.
Karl
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
Hey folks,
I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction. I think
there's actually a lot of work to do to iron out how to
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is
the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and
whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller
groups become their own
I don't think one approach precludes the other. Agreed that incubator
needs to keep going in the interim. Perhaps we can spin off groups
one at a time, starting with just one to get the bugs worked out?
Karl
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Fri,
On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is
significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure
itself more like a board and less like a
At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ...
This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of
podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at
the advice of a small iPMC. In other words, a project is born when
three? foundation members, or others deemed
, Project Incubation, we will probably uncover
other obvious services that the ASF should provide as a VP or committee of
peers to nurture incoming podlings into successful, healthy projects.
Yep, agreed with the above, minus the VP Incubation (or Incubator VP role),
and associated committee
Hey Benson,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ...
This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of
podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at
the advice of a small iPMC.
Yea Bill's amendments
On 2/1/2012 4:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ...
This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of
podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at
the advice of a small iPMC.
No. Forget IPMC. The VP, Project
On 2/1/2012 5:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental
argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely
does not want to have to provide direct
On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very
small
operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire
process
of wrangling the
Hi Bill,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very
small
operational committee just to help
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 21:22, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Bill,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
...
VP Project Incubation
works with those Champions. Much like the foundation-wide security@a.o team
works with all the individual
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Nicola,
Would you please update the STATUS and site to refect this information?
'k
Done.
Should we shutdown the mailing lists and remove commit rights to the
source?
Not yet, this is a 'heads up'.
Nobody objected, nor here, nor on the dev mailing
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Nicola,
Would you please update the STATUS and site to refect this information?
'k
Done.
Should we shutdown the mailing lists and remove commit rights to the
source?
Not yet, this is a 'heads up'.
Nobody objected, nor here, nor on the dev mailing
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Nicola,
Would you please update the STATUS and site to refect this information?
'k
Should we shutdown the mailing lists and remove commit rights to the source?
Not yet, this is a 'heads up'.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba
I write to inform the Incubator that the development of the Incubator
Depot project has stopped. The original committers have no more time to
work on it and the project has failed to attract additional developers.
Therefore, I propose that the incubation is halted and considered 'failed'.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Depot Development
Subject: Closing Incubator Depot Incubation
I write to inform the Incubator that the development of the Incubator
Depot project has stopped. The original committers have no more time to
work on it and the project has failed to attract additional developers
42 matches
Mail list logo
