Jim Jagielski wrote:
--
Andrew C. Oliver|acoliverATapache.org |2003-08-22| 144|
Nicola Ken Barozzi |nicolakenATapache.org|2003-09-19| 142|
Rodent of Unusual Si|coarATapache.org |2003-09-21| 141|
Greg Stein
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 01:26 Europe/Rome, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I said nothing about documentation, process, policy or accountability.
LOL
We certainly agree on this!
:-)
Agree about what? that I didn't say what you previously accused me of
having said?
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
As I understand what is being said, a project is to have a sponsor who is an
ASF Member or Officer. Note that the Incubator PMC Chair is an ASF Officer,
as is every PMC Chair.
... but not every PMC chair is a member (i.e. myself). Things can get
quite funny, that way. It
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:49 AM
Meritocracy?
Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list.
Excuse me, but volume of messages has nothing to do with merit. Roy T.
Fielding posts very infrequently in my
From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:16 AM
I see. but here's one question. Does this meritocracy
encourage the inactive *ASF members* into the retirement status
or hibernation status?
This is something for the ASF membership to worry about.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
It would be really helpful if this page were included in the Home menu
on the Incuabator web site. Also helpful would be the inclusion of the
first link (roles and responsibilities) on the page concerning the
incubation process.
the
Stephen McConnell wrote:
If there is interest, I could try and re-word the content I put together
on the Sponsor responsibilities such that the role of Sponsor is more
oriented towards evangalist/champion, complementing the role of Shepard.
Absolutely! The document was put there as a seed to
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:21:07 +0200
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please, do not post stats of any kind to say something about merit.
Okay, Sander. I will not. I promise.
By the way,
Same for posts;
it's quality and quantity. And stats don't measure quality.
How can you measure
From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:47 PM
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:21:07 +0200
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please, do not post stats of any kind to say something about merit.
Okay, Sander. I will not. I promise.
;)
By the
Steven Noels wrote:
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
perfectly understandable, since it isn't official policy yet. there
*isn't* an official policy at the moment.
... which could hardly qualify things as being by design.
'by design' in that specific proposal, which has not (yet :-) been
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 06:08 Europe/Rome, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:49:24 -0400
(Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom)
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Meritocracy?
Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list.
Excuse me
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:30:37 +0200
(Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom)
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:16 AM
I see. but here's one question. Does this meritocracy
encourage
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she
should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers.
Umm,
... and the standard member line gets rolled out once again
to justify the absence of incubator documentation,
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:28:06 +0200
Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might look, admittedly, strange that an ASF officer is not an ASF
member, but for the PMC chair role, the person has been selected
because he cares very much about one project: this doesn't make the
person
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she
should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers.
Umm,
... and the standard member line gets rolled out once again
to justify the
--
Andrew C. Oliver|acoliverATapache.org |2003-08-22| 144|
Nicola Ken Barozzi |nicolakenATapache.org|2003-09-19| 142|
Rodent of Unusual Si|coarATapache.org |2003-09-21| 141|
Greg Stein |gsteinATapache.org
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she
should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers.
Umm,
... and the standard member line gets
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
i refuse to be sucked any further into one of your confusions.
It's good to see we agree!
Clearly confusion is a central topic that underlines that issues
addressed in this thread. Obviously I'm in good company as my confusion
pales into insignificance when
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:59:34 +0200
From: Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 14:50 Europe/Rome, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she
should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her
peers.
Umm,
... and the standard member line gets
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 17:22 Europe/Rome, Rodent of Unusual Size
wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she
should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her
peers.
Umm,
... and the
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:12:17 -0400
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Statistics would not tell a lie. No prejudice, no favoritism.
Actually, in the USA we have a famous expression:
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Statistics provide a false sense of objectivity.
Ahaha. ROTFL.
In the meantime, despite the choice of rhetoric, and making it sound as if
there was an unaccountable process, Stephen has posted a page that does
warrant review, especially by those who have actual Incubator experience.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings
I suspect
From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:04 AM
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:25:35 -0400
Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the foundation *as a whole*. presumably you care about the welfare
of japan, but don't know what's going in in
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I said nothing about documentation, process, policy or accountability.
LOL
We certainly agree on this!
:-)
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Tetsuya,
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
ROTFL. Statistics won't tell a lie.
Would you like to damn off the Vadim's
http://www.apache.org/~vgritsenko/stats/index.html
No. However, someone naively looking at them, and not knowing about
mirroring and the inconsistent state across the
Stephen,
The following is synthesized from numerous conversations, messages, etc. It
represents my understanding. Hopefully, if I have gotten any aspects wrong,
someone will correct it (and me).
Please put this in context. There have been questions as to what criteria
should exist for
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
What is the Incubator's purpose? What I am told from multiple sources (I
have asked about this out of interest), is that the Incubator is to be used
whenever a substantial codebase (a sub-project) is brought in from outside
the ASF, regardless of whether it is going to
Stephen McConnell wrote:
The words the sponsor should take responsibility is something I agree
with and is the first tangible link to a rationale between sponsor and
Member that I have seen so far.
then i think we have been having a significant disconnect. i think the
link has been very
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If
I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a
member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best
intent - it is excluding
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
For example, if a Member undertakes such a
resonsibility, to whom is the member responsible and what would be the
scope of such a responsibility?
to the podling and the incubator pmc, to see that everything gets
done and done properly. similarly to the
Stephen,
I haven't read through your material, but unless I am wrong about what I
wrote last night, an ASF Officer also qualifies.
Berin Lautenbach suggested gathering and collating material from this
discussion on the Wiki. Some related pages are:
Steven Noels wrote:
I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be
members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working
with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by
design, it wasn't very obvious from the information
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Are there any Sponsor reponsibilities that I am missing here?
i think that participation in the incubator pmc, particularly
during these formative times, would be very valuable. it would
keep the sponsor informed of the developing policies and procedures,
and
Stephen McConnell wrote:
It would be really helpful if this page were included in the Home menu
on the Incuabator web site. Also helpful would be the inclusion of the
first link (roles and responsibilities) on the page concerning the
incubation process.
the wiki pages are not
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:16:38 -0400
Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because they haven't yet *demonstrated* enough merit/understanding to
be nominated for membership. or perhaps they've been nominated but
declined to accept, which i think also means they don't believe enough
Meritocracy?
Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list.
Excuse me, but volume of messages has nothing to do with merit. Roy T.
Fielding posts very infrequently in my experience, but each of his messages
is worth reading. He has a way of cutting through reams of BS with
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
Meritocracy?
yes, meritocracy. the entire asf is a meritocracy, as is each
project within it.
Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list.
:
Hope this helps :-)
not really, at least not for me, since i don't know what point
you're
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be
members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working
with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by
design, it wasn't very obvious from the
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be
members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working
with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by
design, it wasn't
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:49:24 -0400
(Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom)
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Meritocracy?
Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list.
Excuse me, but volume of messages has nothing to do with merit.
Statistics would
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:25:53 -0400
Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
Meritocracy?
yes, meritocracy. the entire asf is a meritocracy, as is each
project within it.
I see. but here's one question. Does this meritocracy
encourage the inactive *ASF
Henri Yandell wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be
members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working
with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by
design, it wasn't very obvious from the
... and, to whom is the ASF Member accountable?
In all contexts, to himself/herself, but if you mean in terms of ASF related
behavior, that would be governed by our Bylaws and policies. To imply that
ASF Members are not accountable would be a horrid stretch.
I am specific asking this in the
Stephen McConnell wrote:
I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If
I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a
member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best
intent - it is excluding non-members from sponsorship
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Given a policy that equates to an exclusion of Apache
contributors - they needs to be some form of accountability by members
towards non-members on matters concerning incubation.
i forgot to add: this is not a democracy. it is a meritocracy.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If
I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a
member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best
intent - it is excluding
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
correct and by design. part of the purpose of the incubator is to
make sure new projects fit into our technical and cultural framework.
assigning the mentoring process to a member, who has become a member
by virtue of demonstrating
48 matches
Mail list logo
