Hi,
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> ...I have argued before for a single Mentor, with responsibilities just like
> the PMC Chairs and if failing the duties, duly replaced by IPMC...
Previous discussions led to proposals to have a "podling chair" with a
similar role to th
What exactly are we trying to achieve here? There is a record number of
podlings in incubation and the best ideas so far are to shame more labor
out of the people that are already overloaded. Sure that will work, as if
burnout wasn't already a problem for mentors.
What is the lesson for the podl
Either you draw the parallels to the TLPs or you don't.
If you do, TLPs don't have Mentors, but they do have a PMC, typically with
engaged members and a 'phone line" to the board in forms of a Chair. If the
"Chair" goes AWOL, then either the PMC members request help from the board
to appoint a new
Continuing down the road of blaming each other for the problem is stupid.
Look the personnel is already ready, willing, and available to do the real
vetting.
All the IPMC has to do is recognize them and integrate them.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:47 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> ...I mostly agree, but would hesitate with the idea that a podling be
> responsible for raising a red flag
> when mentors are inactive. If the IPMC isn’t doing it’s job, that’s on us,
> not the projects we incubate
The IPMC will typi
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:47 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>
>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>
>> I honestly think its time for us to consider being more board like
>> around here at
>> IPMC. May be not exactly as strict as the board, but moving in that
>> direction.
>>
>>
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> I honestly think its time for us to consider being more board like
> around here at
> IPMC. May be not exactly as strict as the board, but moving in that direction.
>
> After all, being a podling means being TLP-on-training-wheels. That
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>>...
>
>> I'm starting to wonder whether the real solution here should be along the
>> lines
>> of what a board would do to a TLP if its active PMC shrinks to less
>> than 3 people.
>>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Pierre Smits
wrote:
> Now, we can argue that mentors have an obligation to vote on releases of an
> incubating project first before the vote is taken to this ml. But that
> could lead to unnecessary delays and frustration.
>
Having the mentors vote in the podlin
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:46 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:56 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
>>... We want all podlings to be actively mentored, and if that doesn't
>> happen they should look for new mentors to make sure they have at
>> least
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:56 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Pierre Smits
> wrote:
> > ...we can argue that mentors have an obligation to vote on releases of an
> > incubating project first before the vote is taken to this ml...
>
> M
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> ...we can argue that mentors have an obligation to vote on releases of an
> incubating project first before the vote is taken to this ml...
Mentors not voting on releases gives a very bad signal to me as to
their engagement in the podling.
W
Mentors, like any other contributor, are volunteers. And have complex
schedules to juggle. Being in that role doesn't avoid (at all times)
missing a vote regarding a release. Thus it is not a guarantee.
We saw it happen in recent vote regarding the latest release of the
incubating Trafodion projec
PS to make it clear: I was just refering to the point of podlings being able to
let jenkins publish nightly builds to the ASF snapshots Maven repo.
It was not meant as remark to any other of the discussed bullets.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 24.04.2017 um 21:14 schrieb Mark Struberg :
>
> Many dozen p
Many dozen podlings do exactly that.
Why should that not be allowed? Hell freezing over?
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 23.04.2017 um 06:04 schrieb Niclas Hedhman :
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> I don't
>> think releasing something out of ASF that hasn't had at least
> On Apr 24, 2017, at 11:48 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> While podlings have an explicit set of mentors, the IPMC as a whole can be
> thought of as an informal set of mentors. Reviewing and voting on podling
> release candidates is one way for any IPMC member to help a podling whether a
> men
> On Apr 23, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> Pat Ferrel wrote on 4/22/17 11:46 AM:
>> Probably the wrong place for this but…
>>
>> What do people think about a governance change for approving releases
>> through the IPMC to wit:
>>
>> A week of no vote activity over the release pro
My plan for PPMC votes is to simply send out "friendly reminder" emails
every 24 hours after the vote deadline has passed.
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Shane Curcuru
wrote:
> Pat Ferrel wrote on 4/22/17 11:46 AM:
> > Probably the wrong place for this but…
> >
> > What do people think about
Pat Ferrel wrote on 4/22/17 11:46 AM:
> Probably the wrong place for this but…
>
> What do people think about a governance change for approving releases
> through the IPMC to wit:
>
> A week of no vote activity over the release proposal of a podling
> should be considered a passing vote. In other
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
>...
> I'm starting to wonder whether the real solution here should be along the
> lines
> of what a board would do to a TLP if its active PMC shrinks to less
> than 3 people.
>
Oh, that's easy, and has been done quite a few times. The Boa
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Your proposal violates foundation policy on releases and is therefore a
> > nonstarter. The ipmc isn't empowered to restructure release policy.
>
> Specifically, the problem Joe is po
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:05 AM Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
> > I don't
> > think releasing something out of ASF that hasn't had at least 3 binding
> votes
> > would be advisable.
>
> AFAIK, projects "publish" to
> https://repository.apach
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> I don't
> think releasing something out of ASF that hasn't had at least 3 binding
votes
> would be advisable.
AFAIK, projects "publish" to
https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache as part
of CI build without vett
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm starting to wonder whether the real solution here should be along the
>> lines
>> of what a board would do to a TLP if its active PMC shrinks to less
>> than 3 people.
>
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
>
> I'm starting to wonder whether the real solution here should be along the
> lines
> of what a board would do to a TLP if its active PMC shrinks to less
> than 3 people.
That will inevitable lead to definition of "what is active" and t
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:14 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 8:10 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
>
>> Another solution is to do back door politicking where you contact IPMC
>> members individually and ask them to take a look. Start with members who
>> have voted on Mahout releases in th
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> I agree that lack of IPMC votes is a problem. I don’t think that lowering the
> bar to making a release is the solution.
+1 to that.
> I wish that each IPMC member would personally commit to voting on two release
> candidates per year. Ther
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 8:10 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> Another solution is to do back door politicking where you contact IPMC
> members individually and ask them to take a look. Start with members who
> have voted on Mahout releases in the past and be specific about what you
> would like them do an
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Your proposal violates foundation policy on releases and is therefore a
> nonstarter. The ipmc isn't empowered to restructure release policy.
>
Specifically, the problem Joe is pointing out is that three actual PMC
members are required to
Another solution is to do back door politicking where you contact IPMC
members individually and ask them to take a look. Start with members who
have voted on Mahout releases in the past and be specific about what you
would like them do and provide links to artifacts and discussions to make
the job
Your proposal violates foundation policy on releases and is therefore a
nonstarter. The ipmc isn't empowered to restructure release policy.
That said, talk to your project mentors about nominating competent release
managers and others participating constructively in the vetting process at
the pod
While I agree, asking is not enforcing. This would add enforcement that would
allow the IPMC to function but have an enforceable clause that also does not
allow it to roadblock by neglect.
Plus about 1/2 the reason I bring this up is trying to get more votes on
PredictionIO :-)
On Apr 22, 201
Incorrect. These people I'm talking about are already voting on (their
own) releases, we just fail to count their votes as binding because we are
anally retentitive about our own status.
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:41 PM Julian Hyde wrote:
> Growing the IPMC is of no use if the members don’t show
Growing the IPMC is of no use if the members don’t show up and vote.
The IPMC performs an important gatekeeper role, ensuring that podling releases
are of sufficient quality to bear the “Apache (Incubating)” stamp. In my view,
all IPMC members have a duty to help with that gatekeeping role. If
That works if human nature is not involved and would still produce the same
affect so I’d second your request in any case.
However human nature is involved and my proposal would at least guarantee that
human nature could not hold innocent projects hostage. BTW notice the include
vote request,
The traditional response to this issue is to grow the ipmc to incorporate
more podling committers.
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:02 PM Julian Hyde wrote:
> I agree that lack of IPMC votes is a problem. I don’t think that lowering
> the bar to making a release is the solution.
>
> I wish that each IP
I agree that lack of IPMC votes is a problem. I don’t think that lowering the
bar to making a release is the solution.
I wish that each IPMC member would personally commit to voting on two release
candidates per year. There are so many members of the IPMC that this would
easily cover all of the
Probably the wrong place for this but…
What do people think about a governance change for approving releases through
the IPMC to wit:
A week of no vote activity over the release proposal of a podling should be
considered a passing vote. In other words the IPMC is to become a vetoing group.
I p
38 matches
Mail list logo
