On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> What we really need for podlings is a "bill of
> rights" towards what they can expect of their
> mentors, because too few of them actually are
> willing to question the participation of the
> people who signed up to mentor them and that's
> n
+1
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 16:04, "Alan Cabrera" wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
> > I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so
> > long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prosp
of disempowerment we too
> often dish out.
>
> From: Alan Cabrera
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
>
> On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Joe Schaef
haefer
>Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:29 AM
>Subject: Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
>
>
>On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> What we really need for podlings is a "bill of
>> rights" towards what they can expect
On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> What we really need for podlings is a "bill of
> rights" towards what they can expect of their
> mentors, because too few of them actually are
> willing to question the participation of the
> people who signed up to mentor them and that's
> not h
On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> I.e. while the IPMC or ComDev or whoever would still set policy and provide
> community best practice guidance. But then separate mailing lists/groups
> would provide actual oversight of podlings (incoming, mentoring, graduating).
> These
___
> From: Alan Cabrera
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:04 AM
>Subject: Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
>
>
>
>On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
>> I think there's merit in the i
On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so
> long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings
> playing the incubators against each other.
Can you provide detail on what you mean by "prospective po
27;t ever learn from our
past mistakes.
>
> From: Upayavira
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:16 AM
>Subject: Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
>
>
>I think there's merit in the id
I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so
long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings
playing the incubators against each other.
Smaller groups, with smaller membership, gives the chance of a greater
sense of ownership and identification, whi
On 6/14/2013 8:25 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
...
Do we really want jakarta@i.a.o or hadoop@i.a.o?
...
ROTFLOL! But the Jakarta project was so fun!
- Shane
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For ad
I proposed this a year or so ago. It was fairly soundly rejected for a
number of reasons, the two I recall (because I felt they had
significant merit) were:
a) adds additional hierarchy
b) impossible to decide where a project best fits
These two things together give the potential for silos.
I do
Hi Shane,
On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Apologies if this horse has been beaten already, but... have we discussed the
> concept of splitting incubator operations into a handful of separate groups,
> based on technology areas?
>
> I.e. while the IPMC or ComDev or whoever w
Apologies if this horse has been beaten already, but... have we
discussed the concept of splitting incubator operations into a handful
of separate groups, based on technology areas?
I.e. while the IPMC or ComDev or whoever would still set policy and
provide community best practice guidance. B
14 matches
Mail list logo
