Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:15 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > This comment by Craig is the most important one in the discussion. > > When the first words that people pick when disagreeing are essentially > personal insults, what is going on is better described as mud wrestling > rather than discussion. >

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

This comment by Craig is the most important one in the discussion. When the first words that people pick when disagreeing are essentially personal insults, what is going on is better described as mud wrestling rather than discussion. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 5:01 AM Craig Russell wrote: > ... >

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Hi Greg, > On Jun 19, 2019, at 12:17 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean > > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why? >> >> Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Honestly, I don't know. I agree that Github++ might not have been the best term but as I said: I didn't think this through to the end. I guess (all of this is a bunch of unfinished ideas) what it boils down to is that we can do the incubation outside of the ASF. I didn't even think about what

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:33 AM Ted Dunning wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke > > > wrote: > > > > > > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised > > for > > > > example is whether

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke > > wrote: > > > > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised > for > > > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP. > > > The mission states: "We

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:23 AM Myrle Krantz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke > wrote: > > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised for > > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP. > > The mission states: "We do this by

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Hi, On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke wrote: > ...Projects wishing to join the ASF as a TLP would then at some point need to > abide by the rules (some of which probably also don't make sense but that's > a different discussion) but until then Mentors could just provide hints... Note

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke wrote: > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised for > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP. > The mission states: "We do this by providing services and support for many > like-minded software

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

This was also discussed on the ASF slack during which I suggested (this is not fully thought through) to change the Incubator model to focus on its core tenets of providing services to projects wanting to join the ASF. For this cause, the projects itself don't need to be ASF projects (not even

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Good effort Bertrand that's definitely some discussions we should have and ease incubation! To be honest I'm mentoring some projects but sometimes I'm out of motivation due to the huge number of nitpicking tasks/requests. I perfectly understand people reactions when they try to go trough the

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:14 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:17 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why? > > > > > > Which is the outcome of

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

> On Jun 19, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:14 PM Ted Dunning wrote: >> ...This vote is *confirming* that >> nobody has objections (of any form) to Zipkin leaving and control of the >> git repos being transferred... > > I agree and this means

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:14 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > ...This vote is *confirming* that > nobody has objections (of any form) to Zipkin leaving and control of the > git repos being transferred... I agree and this means that in this case a [LAZY] vote would have been sufficient. -Bertrand

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:17 AM Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why? > > > > Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus. > > > A vote has two outcomes. This

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:10:14 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > My only comment here is that the Incubator performed a legal action in > accepting Zipkin; in doing so, Zipkin enjoyed some level of ASF > services as well as legal protection. > To dissolve that 'relationship', there should be a clear

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Hi - I agree with Greg and Bertrand to focusing on the Incubator's service orientation. And have written in other threads that we should update our documentation. A podling exit needs to be visible to the Incubator here on general@. (Jim’s clear trail) (1) In order to maintain a record about

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

My only comment here is that the Incubator performed a legal action in accepting Zipkin; in doing so, Zipkin enjoyed some level of ASF services as well as legal protection. To dissolve that 'relationship', there should be a clear trail of intent and action in doing so, not only by Zipkin but

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

An enthusiastic +1 from me, both for Bertrand's statement and Greg's characterization of it. : o), Myrle On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 2:55 PM Sheng Wu wrote: > +1 help/mentor/service > > That is my only goal as mentor to ShardingSphere today. Provide > experiences and helps as much as I could. > >

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

+1 help/mentor/service That is my only goal as mentor to ShardingSphere today. Provide experiences and helps as much as I could. Sheng Wu Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin > 在 2019年6月19日，下午7:13，Greg Stein 写道： > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:14 AM Bertrand Delacretaz < >

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:14 AM Bertrand Delacretaz < bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:13 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > ...Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC... > > IMO something that can help fix that is declaring that the IPMC's goal > is

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Hi, On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:13 AM Greg Stein wrote: > ...Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC... IMO something that can help fix that is declaring that the IPMC's goal is to *provide services to podlings so they can become top-level ASF Projects". Currently, many things

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

I don't think anyone here asked for a vote with ill-will; it was mostly a matter of uncertainty (1). However, I do agree with Greg that only one vote among the departing community, taken on their public list, should be necessary when a community like Zipkin decides to leave. Nonetheless, I did

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why? > > Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus. A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no" outcome. Thus, it is specious on its

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Hi, > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why? Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus. But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record in the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation. Others might have

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Hi > 在 2019年6月19日，下午2:12，Greg Stein 写道： > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > >> Hi David and Greg, >> > >>> On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Justin Mclean >> wrote: >> >> ... > >>> BTW in all previous cases of podlings exiting I could find, a vote was >> taken (see

overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > Hi David and Greg, > > > On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Justin Mclean > wrote: > >... > > BTW in all previous cases of podlings exiting I could find, a vote was > taken (see below links and there’s more I’ve not listed). In most cases > this