Gilles Scokart wrote:
>
> It solve your problem of IPMC not being able to participate/follow
> PPMC private discusion An other benefits is that the PPMC will learn
> from their own private discussion, but also from the discussion of
> other PPMC.
There is no issue. Members have access to every p
At present all private list archives are available only to ASF Members. This
is not policy so much as a pragmatic limitation of available ACLs. apmail is
the owner and apmember is the group. We have talked about having a protected
web interface to private lists, but thus no one has stepped
Hi Upayavira,
On Jun 20, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Upayavira wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
Getting back to my original comment, I don't see how the IPMC can
meaningfully participate in a discussion or vote held on the PPMC
private mailing list. I don't think it's reasonable for an IPMC
member wh
My proposition might be stupid, but what if the IPMC had two private
lists. One purely IPMC (to discuss things like accepting a new IPMC
member) and an other used by IPMC and all PPMC?
It solve your problem of IPMC not being able to participate/follow
PPMC private discusion An other benefits is
Craig L Russell wrote:
Getting back to my original comment, I don't see how the IPMC can
meaningfully participate in a discussion or vote held on the PPMC
private mailing list. I don't think it's reasonable for an IPMC member
who is exercising oversight in the specific case of a new committer t
Getting back to my original comment, I don't see how the IPMC can
meaningfully participate in a discussion or vote held on the PPMC
private mailing list. I don't think it's reasonable for an IPMC
member who is exercising oversight in the specific case of a new
committer to be required to su
Upayavira wrote:
> The implication here is that, if we consider the IPMC to have the role
> of overseeing podlings
Is there an "if" there? ;-) That *is* the job of the Incubator PMC, and it is
the sole holder of that role.
> IPMC members must have the necessary rights to do so.
The Incubato
Craig L Russell wrote:
On Jun 19, 2007, at 1:37 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All very good suggestions.
ant elder wrote:
>
> How about changing it so;
>
> (1) incubator-private is notified that discussion of a new
committer is
On Jun 19, 2007, at 1:37 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All very good suggestions.
ant elder wrote:
>
> How about changing it so;
>
> (1) incubator-private is notified that discussion of a new
committer is
> starting on the poddl
On 6/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All very good suggestions.
ant elder wrote:
>
> How about changing it so;
>
> (1) incubator-private is notified that discussion of a new committer is
> starting on the poddling's private list so IPMCers can participate in
that
> discuss
FWIW, the process outlined below fully addresses my concerns
I had with the original change.
Martin
ant elder wrote:
[...]
How about changing it so;
(1) incubator-private is notified that discussion of a new committer is
starting on the poddling's private list so IPMCers can participate in tha
On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
My apologies if I'm resurrecting something that was discussed
extensively.
Well, yes, there have been three threads on this subject in the past
month, having about 50 emails on the subject.
Please see the incubator-general archives with s
All very good suggestions.
ant elder wrote:
>
> How about changing it so;
>
> (1) incubator-private is notified that discussion of a new committer is
> starting on the poddling's private list so IPMCers can participate in that
> discussion;
>
> (2) when the actual vote happens the incubator is
On 6/7/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it's not a policy change
everything outside
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html is
guidance not policy. the document in question is CTR not RTC.
Good point
so, anyone feeling sufficiently strongly about th
On 6/7/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/7/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My apologies if I'm resurrecting something that was discussed extensively.
>
> It has been pointed out to me that:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57
>
> The actual votes are
Thanks! I should have asked both ways :-) Its useful to know I'm not alone!
Paul
On 6/7/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:35, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> The actual votes are held on the private lists. I'm not sure I
> understand that. I would have thought th
On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:35, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> The actual votes are held on the private lists. I'm not sure I
> understand that. I would have thought that - after having the pre-vote
> discussion on the private lists, the main vote would happen on the
> podling-dev and [EMAIL PROTECTED] li
Ant
+1
Mike.
ant elder wrote:
On 6/7/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My apologies if I'm resurrecting something that was discussed
extensively.
It has been pointed out to me that:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57
The actual votes are held on the private l
On 6/7/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My apologies if I'm resurrecting something that was discussed extensively.
It has been pointed out to me that:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57
The actual votes are held on the private lists. I'm not sure I
understand that.
My apologies if I'm resurrecting something that was discussed extensively.
It has been pointed out to me that:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57
The actual votes are held on the private lists. I'm not sure I
understand that. I would have thought that - after having the pre-vote
20 matches
Mail list logo
