On 3 February 2012 23:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 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 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
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 Incub
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 inf
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
I believe there is a minor typo below:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, 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 wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bi
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, 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 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
>
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 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
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 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.
>
> While I agree that in an ideal
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 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.
While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
operate, do
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 pro
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. wrote:
> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break
> t
On 3 February 2012 01:13, Marvin Humphrey 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 accountable and ove
> I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction.
+1 from me, too.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apach
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 wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52
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 o
I like this general direction as well; seems much more manageable. +1.
Karl
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Leo Simons 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 reorganize
> things. Bef
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 start
need
to go as a foundation.
We don't need to ope any more outdoor markets; we already
have a successful bazaar in front of us!
Cheers,
Chris
>
>
>
>>
>> From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
>> To: William A. Rowe Jr.
>
mann, Chris A (388J)"
>To: William A. Rowe Jr.
>Cc: "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:
>
>
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
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 i
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:
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 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.
>
> Anyw
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 s
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)
> wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> ...
>>> VP Project Incubation
>>>
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 de
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 21:22, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
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 projects as a resource
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 commit
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 wran
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 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 In
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 amendm
Hi Bill,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> [...snip large thought...please check archives here to see it:
http://s.apache.org/S0i
]
>>
>> Anyways I could type more but I think I've beat this horse to death. I appeal
>> to you and to the rest of the board members readi
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 appropriate
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 l
37 matches
Mail list logo