On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>> Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is
>> significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure
>> itself more like a board and less l
At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ...
This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of
podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at
the advice of a small iPMC. In other words, a project is born when
three? foundation members, or others deemed appropriate
Hi Bill,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> [...snip large thought...please check archives here to see it:
http://s.apache.org/S0i
]
>>
>> Anyways I could type more but I think I've beat this horse to death. I appeal
>> to you and to the rest of the board members readi
Hey Benson,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ...
>
> This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of
> podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at
> the advice of a small iPMC.
Yea Bill's amendm
On 2/1/2012 4:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ...
>
> This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of
> podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at
> the advice of a small iPMC.
No. Forget IPMC. The VP, Project In
On 2/1/2012 5:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental
>> argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely
>> does not want to have to provide direct
On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very
>> small
>> operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire
>> process
>> of wran
Hi Bill,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very
>>> small
>>> operational commit
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 21:22, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>...
>> VP Project Incubation
>> works with those Champions. Much like the foundation-wide security@a.o team
>> works with all the individual projects as a resource
Isn't there also something along the lines of what's called "culpable
deniability"? Since podlings may be in states where their offerings
might not be as legal as TLPs (licensing issues, trademark/branding
issues, etc.), is it not more convenient for them to be relegated to
an area specifically de
Hey Greg,
First off, thanks for commenting on this. My
replies below:
On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 21:22, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> ...
>>> VP Project Incubation
>>>
Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break
this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
Anyways, just one commment;
On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> I can easily s
Hey Bill,
On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:25 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break
> this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
Sorry I have a big mouth :) Thanks for breaking it down.
Comments below.
>
> Anyw
On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of
> our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing
> is the following:
>
> You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps
> a
Hey Bill,
On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:33 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>
>> I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of
>> our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing
>> is the following:
On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working
> optimally, then why have him/her?
Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to
revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise i
Hey Bill,
On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>
>> OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working
>> optimally, then why have him/her?
>
> Because when the process needs revision, and it
mann, Chris A (388J)"
>To: William A. Rowe Jr.
>Cc: "general@incubator.apache.org"
>Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 2:08 PM
>Subject: Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?
>
>Hey Bill,
>
>On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>
need
to go as a foundation.
We don't need to ope any more outdoor markets; we already
have a successful bazaar in front of us!
Cheers,
Chris
>
>
>
>>
>> From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
>> To: William A. Rowe Jr.
>
Hey folks,
I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction. I think
there's actually a lot of work to do to iron out how to reorganize
things. Before digging in, I suggest we abstract out a little bit to
see if we have consensus on the overall goals and desired end state
before start
I like this general direction as well; seems much more manageable. +1.
Karl
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction. I think
> there's actually a lot of work to do to iron out how to reorganize
> things. Bef
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
> The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is
> the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and
> whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller
> groups become their o
I don't think one approach precludes the other. Agreed that incubator
needs to keep going in the interim. Perhaps we can spin off groups
one at a time, starting with just one to get the bugs worked out?
Karl
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52
> I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction.
+1 from me, too.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apach
On 3 February 2012 01:13, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
>> The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is
>> the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and
>> whatnot, but are accountable and ove
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break
> t
Hey Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
> thoughts/positioning below.
I was in "sort of concurrence" as well.
I think what you guys are pro
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
> thoughts/positioning below.
While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
operate, do
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>> thoughts/positioning below.
>
> While I agree that in an ideal
Hey Bill,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>
I believe there is a minor typo below:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bi
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
> or...). In particular, when problems arise
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or inf
On 2/3/2012 4:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incub
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or
On 3 February 2012 23:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>>>
37 matches
Mail list logo
