Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > ...Here is a patch: > > https://paste.apache.org/Ersh > > If no one formally lodges a -1, I will claim lazy consensus and apply this > patch... Here's my formal -1 ;-) I don't object to your patch but for

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

> On Mar 22, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. Or rather, reduce > the champion’s role to nominating a project for incubation. Once the project > has entered incubation, the champion’s role ends. > ++1

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > Right now, Apache's rules are so complex that we are all in perpetual > violation. You can't even know what all the rules are! > First, your podling was not part of our charter nor our licensing agreement so I

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:35 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Julian Hyde > wrote: > >> If you want to simplify policy, get rid of

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: >> If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. >> Or rather, reduce the champion’s role to nominating a project for

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 3/22/16 4:56 PM: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: >> If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. >> Or rather, reduce the champion’s role to nominating a project for incubation. >> Once the project has entered

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. > Or rather, reduce the champion’s role to nominating a project for incubation. > Once the project has entered incubation, the champion’s role ends. +1000 to the

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

If you want to simplify policy, get rid of the champion. Or rather, reduce the champion’s role to nominating a project for incubation. Once the project has entered incubation, the champion’s role ends. While Calcite was in incubation no one (including the champion) had a clue what the role of

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

> On Mar 22, 2016, at 11:25 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Russell >> wrote: >>> There is a sorta technical reason for

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Russell > wrote: > > There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the > PMC > > of the sponsor. > > > > I’d expect the

Re: Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

is this just personal catharsis? On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Russell > wrote: >> There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the PMC >> of the

Policy should be simple (was "Allowed Champions on podlings")

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Craig Russell wrote: > There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the PMC > of the sponsor. > > I’d expect the Champion to subscribe to the private@ list and to have > binding votes on podling releases. These