On 7/23/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/22/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
(no change in policy was meant - hopefully that was clear
On 7/23/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
Well, no, the expectation is clearly being ...
I agree with Roy. I'm not sure if he and I yet agree or disagree on what
sorry posted the wrong email :-/
On 7/23/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/23/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
Well, no, the expectation
On 7/22/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
(no change in policy was meant - hopefully that was clear from the context)
Well, no, the expectation is clearly being
On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 15:52 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
let's be honest - the policy document is a mess.
i can't even get 3 +1's to remove commented out material from the policy
document.
+1 from me for removing cruft ;-).
Sanjiva.
On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
Well, no, the expectation is clearly being set that anyone can add
themselves to the proposal on the wiki, and I for one vote to approve
a proposal based on both the wiki and
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think so -- an unwelcome mentor is a waste of everyone's time.
I also think mentors need commit access, since I don't believe it is
^^
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 14:54 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project) but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
If you accept that a Mentor is just a name
On 7/20/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
one of the checkboxes on the status page says:
Give all Mentors access to all incubator SVN modules (to be
done by PMC chair).
so it seems they are required to have access whether the rest
of the committers
model and approach.
So I fully agree it shouldn't be a matter of piling on or just
editing the wiki page. On the other hand, sending a note to the
mailing list, *as well* as editing the wiki page is not a crime. The
wiki page can always been edited back again (and in fact I've had that
happen to me
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
committership. And the justification for the first part seemed to
be making
sure that a company
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
I was more thinking of how mentors volunteer to guide the project
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project)
but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
to different sets of users.
Among other things, it allows communities to fork *within* Apache
when a fundamental design choice cannot reach consensus, or when
the burdens of backwards compatibility impede significant progress.
So I fully agree it shouldn't be a matter of piling on or just
editing the wiki
Sure, and that is up to the proposer. If the proposal does not gain
sufficient support from Apache because of that fact, that's life.
Nevertheless, it is wrong for us to force a new podling to accept
arbitrary committers just because they happen to have been proposed
as an incubator podling.
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 14:54 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
committership. And the justification
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think so -- an unwelcome mentor is a waste of everyone's time.
I also think mentors need commit access, since I don't believe it is
^^
This is the documented practice; see
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It is kind of like getting advice at a barn-raising from some bystander
who isn't willing to lend a hand. The advice will be heard for about
five minutes, after which the people doing the work will simply
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer in the incubator
is giving a person the right to veto code changes based on whatever
technical reason they
are you referring to mentors as well?
On 20/07/2006, at 8:09 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer in the incubator
is
+1.
As a member of an incubating project I totally agree with this.
What I didn't know is that there was a policy that allowed anyone to
just declare themselves committers without consensus of the existing
project participants?
Andrus
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On 7/19/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are you referring to mentors as well?
Personally, yes, I feel this should apply to mentors as well. While
there are cases where a mentor needs commit access for some sort of
procedural issues (maintaining STATUS files, helping to fix up
On 7/19/06, Andrus Adamchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1.
As a member of an incubating project I totally agree with this.
What I didn't know is that there was a policy that allowed anyone to
just declare themselves committers without consensus of the existing
project participants?
I don't
also +1 on Roy,
On 7/19/06, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/19/06, Andrus Adamchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1.
As a member of an incubating project I totally agree with this.
What I didn't know is that there was a policy that allowed anyone to
just declare themselves
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:19 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 7/19/06, Andrus Adamchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1.
As a member of an incubating project I totally agree with this.
What I didn't know is that there was a policy that allowed anyone to
just declare themselves committers without
I was more thinking of how mentors volunteer to guide the project
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project)
but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
On 20/07/2006, at 8:17 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Roy,
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
committership. And the justification for the first part seemed to be making
sure that a company could not start with a lot of its own people, and keep
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 7/19/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are you referring to mentors as well?
Personally, yes, I feel this should apply to mentors as well. While
there are cases where a mentor needs commit access for some sort of
procedural issues (maintaining STATUS files,
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Personally, yes, I feel this should apply to mentors as well.
The Mentors are all Incubator PMC members, and the Incubator PMC as a whole
oversees all Incubator projects. Every Incubator PMC member has an equal
binding vote on every Incubator matter, and ought to be able
Ian Holsman wrote:
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project) but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
If you accept that a Mentor is just a name for an Incubator PMC member who
is active in the project
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Personally, yes, I feel this should apply to mentors as well.
The Mentors are all Incubator PMC members, and the Incubator PMC as a whole
oversees all Incubator projects. Every Incubator PMC member has an equal
, formally get on board and do not
contribute, what good does it do to anybody?
Andrus
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy,
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
...
[...] Probably makes sense to mention in the incubator docs [1] that
new committers are to be voted in following the normal Apache procedures.
Actually it's the incubator ppmc doc that discusses voting in new
committers:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Sure, but I think it should be made clear to mentors that the fact
that nothing is preventing them from committing changes to the project
they mentor doesn't mean that they should do so with abandon.
Does my response to Martin sufficiently reflect your view?
---
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Sure, but I think it should be made clear to mentors that the fact
that nothing is preventing them from committing changes to the project
they mentor doesn't mean that they should do so with abandon.
Does my response
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
PPMC can oversee the process and should be able to veto proposed
committers without sufficient earned karma, but I don't see the
downsides of self-government of the incubating project.
The PPMC *is* the self-governing body for the Incubating project. Which is
why I
I guess I misread the proposed bootstrap procedure and its
ramifications.
- bootstrap the PPMC from the PMC (assigning Mentors)
- election by the PPMC of project contributors to the PPMC
- election by the PPMC of Committers
1. I was wondering why incubating project committers who are not
37 matches
Mail list logo
