How do we go about changing the Incubator Proposal Guide so that the rules
around adding new committers to a podling at proposal time? As much fun as
a good email thread can be, we don't want to have to relive the same ones
over and over.
Can we come up with a consensus view and get it into the gu
Or better yet, a change like that could be made to the Incubator Policy.
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html
Thoughts?
- Dave
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Dave wrote:
> How do we go about changing the Incubator Proposal Guide so that the rules
> around addin
On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave wrote:
> Here's what I think we should add:
>
> After a proposal is submitted to the incubator but before a vote is called
> the proposing community may choose to add additional committers who ask to
> be committers or may chose to defer adding new committers u
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave wrote:
> > Here's what I think we should add:
> >
> > After a proposal is submitted to the incubator but before a vote is
> called
> > the proposing community may choose to add additional committers who as
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave wrote:
>
> > Here's what I think we should add:
> >
> > After a proposal is submitted to the incubator but before a vote is
> called
> > the proposing community may choose to add additional committers wh
Alex, you are constantly mixing up expectations of PMCs
and podlings. Plus, since the ASF did not watch how Usergrid
was handled when it was external, we (the ASF) has no idea
how "meritocratic" it was... in fact, and I'm sorry to say
this, the viciousness of all this leads me to wonder just
what c
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Alex, you are constantly mixing up expectations of PMCs
> and podlings. Plus, since the ASF did not watch how Usergrid
> was handled when it was external, we (the ASF) has no idea
> how "meritocratic" it was... in fact, and I'm sorry to say
I was under the impression that what you describe was the policy - if it is
not then is should certainly be clarified.
In the event that podlings continue to or are to be given such a choice, I
believe that there needs to be a clear understanding between the incoming
community and those volunteers
We are not talking about "piling on" for Pete's sake. We
are talking about 2-3 people who expressed an interest in
becoming initial committers. Are you saying that even if
those 2-3 people were complete deadwood that the other
committers and especially the Mentors would be so overwhelmed
by such a
On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:33 PM, larry mccay wrote:
>
> That shared understanding seems to be what was missing in this case.
>
Indeed that was the case, as I indicated in a previous post.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubsc
Hi Dave,
This topic actually did make it into the incubator guides but it's a bit hard
to find it. From
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/participation.html#committer:
<>
So I think there is already consensus on the practice of piling on. And
please note that I am not suggesting that anythi
I propose that this then be seen as a learning experience and determine
what questions a champion needs to ask of the mentors and incoming
community on the outset in order to execute.
This has been an unfortunate bit of thrashing that was avoidable through
communication. That is not to say that it
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
> < those interested in committership)
IMO once the possible approaches are documented, we should require
incoming podlings to choose one and indicate which one in the
incubation proposal.
-Bertrand
---
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Craig L Russell
> wrote:
> > < (for those interested in committership)
>
> IMO once the possible approaches are documented, we should require
> incoming podlings to choose one and indicate
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Plus, since the ASF did not watch how Usergrid
> was handled when it was external, we (the ASF) has no idea
> how "meritocratic" it was...
I have no idea how that is important for *entering* the incubator. One
of the core tenets of incubatin
On Sep 27, 2013, at 3:33 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> Incoming
> *existing* communities need to be mentored into becoming Apache
> communities, not being hammered into them when they are doing their
> babysteps.
>
Who said or implied anything differently?
-
I think that all of this might boil down to the observation, way back
in this thread, that there are different patterns of incoming
projects.
Some incoming podlings are very small groups of people. If they are
paying attention, they know that attracting new people will be their
biggest problem. In
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> Perhaps the initial committers list should be split into two:
>
> - interested developers
> - initial committers
>
> This way a podling can engage with the interested developers and
> quickly form an (expanded) community. IMO when an e
contribute to the very project.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Benson Margulies
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013, 13:34
> Subject: Re: The podling initial committers issue
>
> I think that all
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Martijn Dashorst
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the initial committers list should be split into two:
> >
> > - interested developers
> > - initial committers
> >
> > This way a podling can engage with the inter
20 matches
Mail list logo
