On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>> In short, the pTLP designation is a bit too opaque
>>
>> So you mean all TLPs should have status labels
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> In short, the pTLP designation is a bit too opaque
>
> So you mean all TLPs should have status labels?
>
> Might be useful...probatory, active, low activity, attic candidat
> On Jan 27, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> In short, the pTLP designation is a bit too opaque
>
> So you mean all TLPs should have status labels?
>
> Might be useful...probatory, active, low activity, attic c
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> In short, the pTLP designation is a bit too opaque
So you mean all TLPs should have status labels?
Might be useful...probatory, active, low activity, attic candidate...why not.
-Bertrand
-
> On Jan 27, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> ...- do away w/ the pTLP name, just make it a regular TLP...
>
> I don't like that, IMO pTLPs have to be explicitly flagged, to make
> sure both users and Apache folks a
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> ...- do away w/ the pTLP name, just make it a regular TLP...
I don't like that, IMO pTLPs have to be explicitly flagged, to make
sure both users and Apache folks are aware of their "immaturity".
-Bertrand
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> ...For Flex, we did not have an established community of developers coming in
> with the code. But I don’t know that we could have recruited enough ASF
> members to be committers
I agree with that, I was a Flex mentor but only interested i
It's an *option* not the only route. Working for some but not others is just
fine.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:23 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Chris Mattmann; Jim Jagielski
Subject: Re: my pTLP vi
I can see how it could work for some new communities, but I don’t think it
will work for all. I would imagine some potential podlings don’t have
well-established communities. They might just be a few folks with a good
idea and looking to recruit lots of new folks for the initial committers
list.
TL;DR I think this is a good idea.
I thought long and hard about this during the weekend and I’ve changed my mind
about this; I’ll spare you my handwringing thought processes. Some things that
I personally would like to see:
- do away w/ the pTLP name, just make it a regular TLP
- ComDev shoul
Yes, formal votes for all decisions has been my *universal* experience on
all projects I have participated in at Apache. It's like there are two (or
more) different foundations, culturally. Thanks for the consideration.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 25.01.2015 21:07,
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> ...The Apache Members are coming in as the PMC. This is a much more
>> serious commitment than being a Mentor. The pTLP is not an
>> IPMC entity
>
> Ok, I agree that if those
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> ...The Apache Members are coming in as the PMC. This is a much more
> serious commitment than being a Mentor. The pTLP is not an
> IPMC entity
Ok, I agree that if those PMC members take that as seriously as you
think there shouldn't be an
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>> ...They are reporting to the Board. We know what inact
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: my pTLP view
Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is
what we're talking about. Not the Strawman.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Oh, my mistak
On Jan 25, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> ...They are reporting to the Board. We know what inactivity looks like. So
>>> we
>>> ask the PMC to fix it, or we shut
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> ...They are reporting to the Board. We know what inactivity looks like. So we
>> ask the PMC to fix it, or we shut them down
>
> I know how that works, it's just that with your
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> ...They are reporting to the Board. We know what inactivity looks like. So we
> ask the PMC to fix it, or we shut them down
I know how that works, it's just that with your pTLP proposal the
podling is "at the mercy" of their mentors - if th
On 25.01.2015 21:07, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> I'm not arguing with you Greg (smile), honestly, Subversion sounds like a
> very laid back place to participate. It's different in Bigtop, HBase,
> Phoenix, Whirr (of historical note), and Hadoop (secondhand observation),
> Hive (secondhand observation),
I'm not arguing with you Greg (smile), honestly, Subversion sounds like a
very laid back place to participate. It's different in Bigtop, HBase,
Phoenix, Whirr (of historical note), and Hadoop (secondhand observation),
Hive (secondhand observation), ZooKeeper (secondhand observation) and
others. For
Yes, and I briefly confused the two, and fessed up.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is
> what we're talking about. Not the Strawman.
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>
> > Oh,
Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is
what we're talking about. Not the Strawman.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Oh, my mistake! (smile) I confused pTLP with the "Strawman" proposal there
> for a minute. In the pTLP proposal, there are
Apache Subversion uses discussion/consensus for all of those. We throw out
+1 and similar as shorthand for our preference, but we never tally, as it
isn't a formal vote.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> In all of the projects I have been PMC or PPMC on, we vote on release
In all of the projects I have been PMC or PPMC on, we vote on releases, new
committers, and elevating committers to PMC.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>
> > > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP.
> >
>
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP.
>
> Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal
> ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals,
> then the decision is reviewed as a whole.
Oh, my mistake! (smile) I confused pTLP with the "Strawman" proposal there
for a minute. In the pTLP proposal, there are no new-to-the-Foundation
project members on the pTLP PMC.
"All proposals for new ASF projects must include an initial PMC chair and
an initial set of PMC members. These people m
> This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP.
Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal
ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals,
then the decision is reviewed as a whole. But this is not how things would
work in a pTLP, right? Individua
On 25.01.2015 19:51, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems with
> >
> a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the impression
> >
> that the PPMC can make binding decisions.
>
> Close. The PPMC membership feels they have made
> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems with
>
a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the impression
>
that the PPMC can make binding decisions.
Close. The PPMC membership feels they have made a decision that matters
with equal input.
Certainly on
On 25.01.2015 19:16, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make votes we call binding on matters of
> their own project.
As other people have said, PPMC members (that are not also IPMC members)
do not have binding votes, neither for releases nor for inviting new
committers/PPM
_
> From: Andrew Purtell<mailto:apurt...@apache.org>
> Sent: 1/23/2015 6:09 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: my pTLP view
>
> You are approaching this question with complete trust
because pTLP is an *option*
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Andrew Purtell<mailto:apurt...@apache.org>
Sent: 1/23/2015 6:09 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: my pTLP view
You are approaching this q
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>...
> project, they become a PPMC, a podling. Sure, the IPMC provides oversight,
> and the board again, but the PPMC can make binding votes on committers,
> releases, everything that matters - provisionally, of course, which is
> completely
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> A good mentor is a guide, not a manager.
>
>
And a good manager is a Mentor ;-)
Niclas
You are approaching this question with complete trust and faith in the
Apache process, being an Apache member, but an incoming / foreign community
will not have this, not universally. Take the emotion out of this, because
I certainly am not being emotional here, but instead trying to evaluate
this
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Those of us in such a new incoming community might get the commit bit but
> can't vote on adding committers,
See my reply to Jan. C == PPMC solves this completely.
> or making releases.
This is *exactly* what is happening today with every
I find the direction this discussion has gone personally disappointing, but
I might be missing understanding of some crucial point.
> 2. the initial PMC is comprised of only ASF Members. committers can be
>
chosen however the community decides. but the *project* is reviewed by
> people with (h
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 1/23/15, 1:34 PM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)"
> wrote:
>
> >A good mentor is a guide, not a manager.
> >
> >The proposals might seem top down, but when executed correctly, they are
> >not.
>
> OK, I'll accept that, but if executed correct
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:18 PM, jan i wrote:
> On Saturday, January 24, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
> ross.gard...@microsoft.com
> > wrote:
>
> > No, the PMC is *not* the driving force. The project community is, even
> > where the PMC is a subset of the committers. Since it is the set of
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:18 PM, jan i wrote:
> Remember we talk rules here, and rules should be made so the reflect what
> we want, and I believe it is important that the community is represented in
> the PMC, not 100% but also not 0%.
I still don't understand what's the extra bit of 'shine' tha
I really feel we risk ruining
> everything we stand for.
>
> jan i
>
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> >
> > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com >
> > Sent: 1/23/2015 12:06 PM
> > To: general@incubator.
;
> jan i
>
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> >
> > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com >
> > Sent: 1/23/2015 12:06 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org >
> > Cc: Chris Mattm
+1
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:51 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: my pTLP view
On Fri
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
wrote:
> All that being said, while I will (and already did two years ago) support
> some experimentation with
> the pTLP model I still feel that an Incubator with teeth scales better.
But we wouldn't know until we try. And that's why
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, jan i wrote:
> On Friday, January 23, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
> ross.gard...@microsoft.com
> > wrote:
>
>> A good mentor is a guide, not a manager.
>>
>> The proposals might seem top down, but when executed correctly, they are
>> not.
>
> No offense but
; To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
> Cc: Chris Mattmann<mailto:mattm...@apache.org>; Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com>
> Subject: Re: my pTLP view
>
>
>
> On 1/23/15, 6:53 AM, "jan i" wrote:
> >
> >I agree with
On 1/23/15, 1:34 PM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)"
wrote:
>A good mentor is a guide, not a manager.
>
>The proposals might seem top down, but when executed correctly, they are
>not.
OK, I’ll accept that, but if executed correctly, the current Incubator
probably doesn’t need changing either.
I
o:general@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: Chris Mattmann<mailto:mattm...@apache.org>; Jim
Jagielski<mailto:j...@jagunet.com>
Subject: Re: my pTLP view
On 1/23/15, 6:53 AM, "jan i" wrote:
>
>I agree with everything else you write, but the demand for "only ASF
>M
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Roman kicked off a query about "next steps", with links to several wiki
> pages on possibilities. The "IncubatorV2" page which describes a
> "probationary TLP" is nothing like I have thought about.
>
> In my mind, a pTLP looks *exactly* like an
++
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 12:05 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Cc: Jim Jagielski , Chris Mattmann
Subject: Re: my pTLP view
>On Jan 23, 2015
On 1/23/15, 6:53 AM, "jan i" wrote:
>
>I agree with everything else you write, but the demand for "only ASF
>Members" seems very hard. If I come to ASF with a community and a project,
>I really would feel unhappy being cut out of the loop
Time for my weekly musings. Sorry, no oaths and anthems
On Jan 23, 2015 8:53 AM, "jan i" wrote:
>
> On 23 January 2015 at 14:42, Greg Stein wrote:
> >...
>
> I agree with everything else you write, but the demand for "only ASF
> Members" seems very hard. If I come to ASF with a community and a project,
> I really would feel unhappy being cut out of th
They are reporting to the Board. We know what inactivity looks like. So we
ask the PMC to fix it, or we shut them down. Just this week, you messaged a
PMC asking if they had enough actives. There is ample precedent for us
detecting and working through inactivity.
On Jan 23, 2015 9:46 AM, "Bertrand
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> ...1. probationary text is prominent,...
> ...2. the initial PMC is comprised of only ASF Members...
I like that proposal, it's simple and looks actionable.
The only worry is what happens if the ASF Members on the PMC become
inactive - t
From: Chris Mattmann<mailto:mattm...@apache.org>
Sent: 1/23/2015 7:18 AM
To: Greg Stein<mailto:gst...@gmail.com>;
general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>; Chris
Mattmann<mailto:mattm...@apache.org>; Jim Jagielski<mailto:j...@jagunet.com
+1000. My view too and with my support too.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein
Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:42 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" , Chris
Mattmann , Jim Jagielski
Subject: my pTLP view
>Roman kicked off a query about "next steps", with links to several wiki
On 23 January 2015 at 14:42, Greg Stein wrote:
> Roman kicked off a query about "next steps", with links to several wiki
> pages on possibilities. The "IncubatorV2" page which describes a
> "probationary TLP" is nothing like I have thought about.
>
> In my mind, a pTLP looks *exactly* like any o
57 matches
Mail list logo
