Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 09:59 +0200, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?... > > Off the top of my head I'd say: A look back at the OpenOffice thread would find an example where significant questions and doubts were discussed. The political

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Hi, > I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not > enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about > what expectations we're setting, etc. While I don’t know the exact answer and can;t speak for the project. I don’t see too much of an issue here

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Forgot to add - and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no? A. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > This is a legitimate question - by my very rough count, we've accepted > 25-30 podlings into the Incubator in the last year, and other than

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > ...Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template covering > infrastructural requirements/expectations?... You could add a question to the "Required Resources" section of the podling proposals,

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Hi, On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings getting > to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?.. I don't have such an example, but it might also just be

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > ...Is there a case where we've rejected a podling due to the infrastructure > costs? I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not > enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template covering infrastructural requirements/expectations? A. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Bayer > wrote: > >

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Is there a case where we've rejected a podling due to the infrastructure costs? I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about what expectations we're setting, etc. A. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:59 AM,

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Yeah, that's just it... If a project gets to the 'vote for Incubation' phase, there's a real good chance that all the non-viable and non-acceptable proposals have either been modified or simply rejected before it even gets that far. > On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Ted Dunning

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote: >> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings >> getting >> to the point of a serious

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

It is very common for a project as initially proposed to be rejected during initial champion counseling or during discussion. If problematic aspects are mitigated or mentors sign up for extra care, this rarely results in a complete stop of the incubation, however. As with all Apache processes,

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being > turned into a pariah in the process. =)... I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a podling. As those are majority votes that wouldn't be a veto,

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

On 10/13/2015 04:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: >> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being >> turned into a pariah in the process. =)... > > I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > ...On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that > graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto?... Even if the docs mentioned consensus, in Apache projects that means "widespread

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be socially permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask

RE: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

If a project has infra requirements that are not “standard” for the ASF then these should, IMHO, be uncovered by the champion/mentors prior to proposal. If missed there then the discuss phase should uncover them. These should then be discussed with the infra team prior to vote. Ross

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to > still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the > DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > > But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to > still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the > DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

On 10/13/2015 04:40 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 10/13/2015 04:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: >>> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being >>> turned into a pariah in the process. =)... >> >> I don't

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Thanks - just wanted to make sure. =) A. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Bayer > wrote: > > > > But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were > to > > still

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Where is that template kept? A. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Bayer > wrote: > > ...Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template > covering > >

RE: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#proposal-template -Original Message- From: Andrew Bayer [mailto:andrew.ba...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 8:04 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings? Where

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

The social pressure is likely to be there, but I would definitely stand up for the expectation that you *should* vote -1 if you really do have a concern. That said, there is also a strong push back against ending the discussion too early precisely because of the possibility somebody with an

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Just a note to chime in specifically on Mynewt. The simulated tests are very low overhead, its a single process that requires a virtual timer (i.e. elapsed runtime from OS scheduler vs real time) at a 1ms tick. There is no requirement to have physical hardware testing within the ASF project