Re: [MENTORS] Mentor guidance document

Only replying because I'm called out explicitly. Documentation does not solve the problem. If someone doesn't already "get" this stuff then they should not be mentoring. Having a document does not replace for selecting good mentors who have the time to do the job right. It's a good effort in

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Here's an idea... The IPMC focuses on supporting mentors to do their job rather than forcing project developers and their mentors to jump through arbitrarily defined hoops. That means stay out of the way until the mentor asks for a graduation vote. The IPMC doesn't need to enforce policy of

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

I see I was volunteer... OK let's do it. --- Sent from my phone, you know what that means - sorry From: David Nalley Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 8:31:29 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

When I used to do endless apache way talks I used to say "if you are using an Incubator project expect to invest in both engineering and legal, but once a project is a TLP your legal can reduce and engineering becomes about your use rather than community progrwe towards TLP" In other words Jim

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Thanks Greg, I am fully in support of your position here. The ASF is supposed to make it easier for developers to develop. It is not supposed to be creating red tape to guard the entrance to the hallowed halls. Ross From: Greg Stein Sent: Sunday,

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Jim said "Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way" I say... HEAR! HEAR! Get Outlook for Android From: Jim Jagielski Sent:

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote

Myrle makes a good point. As a mentor (is been a long time though) I tried to cast my vote after there were at least 3 views from the community. Once I saw the ppmc catching issues I was missing, or I was simply ratifying their view, it was time to graduate. The IPMC should have nothing to do

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote

Sure, policy is "Release votes SHOULD remain open for at least 72 hours." The reasons for the SHOULD have been outlined already and should be well known to anyone who is in a podling since it's core to everything we do. I would have hoped champions would have explained this before even making

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote

rg%2Fthread.html%2F6e26ccaecba70a5cde1f808d82499701562f370441067b96ca65f09a%40%253Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%253Edata=02%7C01%7C%7Cf3f98ab49c294fdee58408d6b65a22eb%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636896895573897795sdata=oQg4R6ms2IRkfoGdVAf54vUrhXLaq9DIbmk%2F4SzwTvE%3Dreserved=0 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 11:15

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote

Just like so many things, this is how it used to be. In fact, back in the day the only time the IPMC was asked to vote was when there were not enough mentor votes. If you look at all the podlinga I've mentored I have only ever asked for an IPMC vote on two occasions (that I recall). One

Re: List of Projects that went straight to Top Level Projects

This was an outcome of the last time the IPMC processes were challenged. Basically the board agreed that in cases where the initial PMC consisted of plenty of existing experienced ASF people there was no need for incubation. There was never an intention of going straight to TLP if there was not

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

"What is important is tat it has been addressed and the podling is fixing the issue" - big +1000 Thank you to everyone for doing the right thing here. Including Justin for agreeing to change his vote - I think that was the right thing to do even though, on this occasion, he could have cited my

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

z Sent: Saturday, March 30, 3:00 AM Subject: Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues To: general@incubator.apache.org On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:11 AM Ross Gardler wrote: > As for not enough votes i refer you to Roy's suggestion on board@. > Essentially votes don't need to

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

For 2, yes I'm saying exactly that. It's long been an expectation in apache that a -1 be accompanied by a willingness to help fix the problem. There are a few exceptions, such as releases. That's why I have #1 of something is not approved by legal and infra then a -1 reflects that. If the -1 is

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

Three comments, each of which I phrase as my opinion on the correct way to do this. Each comment is independent from the other: 1) If VP Legal or VP Infra says any of the issues are blockers then the podling cannot do a release 2) If IPMC members want to become contributors and help fix the

Re: A smaller IPMC

I think this thread misses the point of the original observation. Firstly, I've not seen anyone suggest that removing inactive IPMC members will make any difference. What I've seen is a suggestion that active IPMC members on general@ should be expected to be on the private list. While there

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

LP? If both PMC & Committer roles are merit-based, and merit does not expire, how it even possible to remove TLP committer/PMC (excepting some extreme cases)? This question is not only mine, but it is also often asked and I would like to know the answer. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov ср, 6 мар. 2019 г. в

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

early understand why remained members resisting this change. пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 09:58, Ross Gardler : > That's right Greg. And since we are filling in gaps for people... > > I was originally against the pTLP concept (though I supported the > experiments) or any of the derivatives

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

, March 3, 2019 10:19 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates)) On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ross Gardler wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to act on behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the foundation. We already have a good set of practices around marking incubator projects and their releases. This is dependent upon the project

Re: Tying Dockerhub into development and release management

These would not be official releases. One or more of your community can create Docker builds from apache released source. Ideally the build files will be part of the ASF project. Dockerhub has GitHub integration, so all it takes is for someone in the community to create the account and connect

Re: Meritocracy, initial contributors and (Incubator) Proposals

Some very general guidance - https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html Get Outlook for Android From: Lars Francke Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 8:34:10 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Meritocracy, initial contributors

RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Amaterasu Incubator Proposal

Exciting stuff, it may have already been said but the name is pretty bad. To my (native) English ear it sounds like "Amateur". Ross -Original Message- From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:39 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject:

RE: [VOTE] Apache Fineract podling graduation

+ 1 (binding) Great job Fineract team. Ross -Original Message- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 8:12 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Fineract podling graduation +1

RE: [VOTE] Gobblin to enter Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Not signing up to mentor, but I will be watching and hopefully helping from the sidelines. -Original Message- From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:27 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Gobblin to

RE: Consult License Compatible Issue

Less of a compatible/incompatible list, more of an Apache Policy with respect to allowable licenses in ASF software... http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html -Original Message- From: yukon [mailto:yu...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:21 AM To:

Re: [DISCUSS] China Contribution.

%40microsoft.com%7C808042edd5b14a5b10a208d40a6fcb8d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636144922670097660=2oNou0brTf1%2BMauWp%2B9qS7RckBdCQ11RfDMnM92sQkI%3D=0>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Gunnar Tapper >>> <tapper.gun...@gmail.com<mailto:

RE: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ Incubation Proposal

+1 > -Original Message- > From: Luke Han [mailto:luke...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 4:46 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ Incubation Proposal > > > My feeling reading RocketMQ is that its done in a "this is why > > RocketMQ is

Re: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ Incubation Proposal

Some folks may remember my state of the feather session a couple of years ago when I called for more awareness of the ASFs role in open source beyond English speaking countries. This was prompted by a fact finding trip to China. RocketMQ and the team behind it was one of the projects I talked

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yes, with a few binding -1's there is nothing to discuss unless Datastax wish to reconsider. I doubt they want to discuss that on a public list. Ross > -Original Message- > From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.sapu...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:57 PM > To:

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yep. As Greg points out this is to be considered a hostile fork. So I'm -1 as well. --- Twitter: @rgardler From: Henry Saputra Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:55:58 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I think the simplest definition of a "hostile fork" is this: Does the copyright owner object to the fork? Yes - it's hostile No - it’s not hostile Ross > -Original Message- > From: Julian Hyde [mailto:jh...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:11 PM > To:

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

tax is not > against the move of Titan to ASF but has stated that they will neither support > or block it, as long as it doesn't involve them participating or signing the > software grant" I've CC'ed him to get him onto this thread. > > Thanks, > Ted > > On Thu, Sep 29,

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I see the GitHub code is untouched for over a year. Are Datastax objecting to the proposal or is it just that they are unwilling to actively supporting it? Ross > -Original Message- > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:23 AM >

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

I never said comparative use. --- Twitter: @rgardler From: Bertrand Delacretaz Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:47:38 PM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

of user numbers not being a good indicator is remains. > -Original Message- > From: Ross Gardler > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 8:48 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache > NetBeans Incubator P

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

r.apache.org > Subject: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans > Incubator Proposal) > > Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does sign the > check and should be worried about these things. > > Still, the number of Java develop

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

been any such talk? > > How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and > NetBeans level. Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem healthier > in my opinion. It would be a shame to not have one of the real open source > Java IDEs exist as an Apache

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects. Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing. It

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Daniel, this is excellent. Thank you. When we brought AOO in we offset some costs, such as bandwidth, through our arrangement with SourceForge. Can we do the same here? (I imagine this has already been discussed, I'm behind of those threads, I'm just looking for a short summary). Shane, if the

RE: Incubation and GSOC

Really? In that case I need to apologies, as a mentor, I certainly didn't forward them. These new fangled email clients that know better than me what I need to read and what I don't. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ulrich Stärk Sent:

RE: Incubation and GSOC

http://community.apache.org/gsoc.html#prospective-asf-mentors-read-this -Original Message- From: Ed Cable [mailto:edca...@mifos.org] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:09 AM To: d...@fineract.incubator.apache.org Cc: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubation and GSOC Greg

RE: Request for advice on code donation

CCLA is optional for ASF -Original Message- From: Josh Elser [mailto:josh.el...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:34 PM To: d...@slider.incubator.apache.org Cc: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Request for advice on code donation

RE: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

sure beats broadcast mails to pmcs@. On Jan 10, 2016 7:15 PM, "Ross Gardler" <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > jira is exactly how I used to run GSOC, I think the process remains > roughly the same. The goal WA to have a list of tasks marked as > "mentor avail

RE: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

Who says its OK? Unless approved by VP Legal it's not OK. If there has been a documented decision to allow this then the legal policy docs need updating before we start updating any Incubator docs Sent from my Windows Phone From: Justin

RE: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

jira is exactly how I used to run GSOC, I think the process remains roughly the same. The goal WA to have a list of tasks marked as "mentor available". This list could bf used throughout the year, not just GSOC. I built searches for this but it never really got traction. I still think it's a

RE: Concerted may be in need of help

+1 Everyone should read the subject and reset. If IPMC members having nothing better to offer than "give up" then please refrain from offering your advice to mentors asking for constructive help. That is not to say projects should linger, but unless mentors advise it we should not be

RE: Concerted may be in need of help

+1 Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnik Sent: ‎1/‎8/‎2016 7:35 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: d...@concerted.incubator.apache.org;

[RESULTS] RE: [VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator

The vote to accept Fineract into the incubator passed (12 +1 votes with plenty of IPMC member votes, no other votes cast) We’ll start the process of incubation. Ross From: Ross Gardler Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:22 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Accept Fineract

RE: [VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator

+1 From: Ross Gardler Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:22 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator I would like to call a vote on accepting the Fineract project into the Apache Incubator. The proposal is pasted below and posted at http

[VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator

sors == === Champion === Ross Gardler === Nominated Mentors === * Ross Gardler * Roman Shaposhnik * Greg Stein === Sponsoring Entity === Incubator PMC

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

For those who didn't work on the proposal I can assure you there is no confusion in this incoming community over who makes the decisions. I recommended the same model I advocate in the IPMC. The model we started with. Champion brings the project in, is responsible if problems arise but is nt

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

o:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [PORPOSAL] Fineract On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Nobody is turned away. Jedi mind tricks won't work on me Ross:) When someone says, "We are not seeking more." it is the same as being turn

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [PORPOSAL] Fineract On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > I'm replying top of thread as this is a general reply regarding mentors. > > We just added Greg Stein as a third mentor. He

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

sors == === Champion === Ross Gardler === Nominated Mentors === * Ross Gardler * Roman Shaposhnik === Sponsoring Entity === Incubator PMC Cheers *Markus Geiss* Chief Architect RADAR, The Mifos Initiative mge...@mifos.org | Skype: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mgeiss.mifos.org=01%

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

soni Systems) * Myrle Krantz (The Mifos Initiative) * Terence Monteiro (SanJose Foundation) * Adi Nayaran Raju (Conflux Technologies) * Nazeer Hussain Shaik (Conflux Technologies) == Sponsors == === Champion === Ross Gardler === Nominated Mentors === * Ross Gardler * Roman Shapos

RE: [VOTE] Retire Ripple

+1 -Original Message- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:54 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Retire Ripple Greetings, The Ripple community has been discussing retirement on their dev list.

RE: Ripple to be retired from the incubator?

@incubator.apache.org Cc: d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Ripple to be retired from the incubator? On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Looks like there is consensus here. I'm not sure of the process as > I've never been through it befor

RE: Ripple to be retired from the incubator?

Actually adding general@ for guidance on the process -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 3:21 PM To: d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Ripple to be retired from the incubator? Looks like there is consensus

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Brock, I can assure you that's not Greg's style so I doubt you have anything to worry about. -Original Message- From: Brock Noland [mailto:br...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 9:54 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...) >

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

The suggestion is to add it to the proposal template - that's before incubation starts. -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:49 PM To: general-incubator Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was:

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Good point. I should add to my comments that even a CTR project uses RTC for non-committers. And that a release vote means that at least three people have reviewed the code from (at least) an IP standpoint, if not from a code quality standpoint. In other words, +1 However, RTC projects do not

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Todd asks "How do you know if someone else has already read the commit" - I don't care. Just as people writing code can make mistakes, so can people who review code. For this reason if *I* care about *that* commit I will review it in detail - regardless of RTC or CTR. The more people who

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Summarizing: In a healthy project I believe that the only significant things that change between CTR and RTC are: 1) speed of commit (CTR is faster) 2) quality of master, not releases (RTC catches most issues before commit, CTR shortly after commit) I agree with others, nothing in the Apache

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I agree, mostly, with your mail Stephen, but I wonder about the reference you make to "the mess of every commits". Do you really see that? If you do see it I suspect the project has a problem. In my experience reverts are rare. We prefer people improve what is there rather than revert what they

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Interesting, Todd, can you identify which of your three arguments for CTR are not present in RTC. Ross -Original Message- From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:t...@cloudera.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:23 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning

RE: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

It's a problem when "mentors" tell projects what to do. The role of a mentor is to explain the pros and cons of different approaches so that the community can make an optimal decision The Apache Way is indeed about doing what is right for the community. Its not a prescriptive model. There are

RE: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

Very strong -1 I'm pretty sure the details of my objections will already be covered in the thread (not read it yet, just need to express my very clear objection to this proposal, I'll follow up else-thread if there is anything I need to add beyond my summary below). Summary of my objection:

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

Dennis makes a good point. Some to ago it became common to think of the diversity objective to become a minimum number of contributors from different orgs rather than an acceptance of new contributors views. Now we require a behavior pattern likely to lead to diversity. One is quantative

RE: [VOTE] Graduate REEF

+1 -Original Message- From: Chris Douglas [mailto:cdoug...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 1:47 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate REEF +1 -C On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Markus Weimer wrote: > This is the vote to decide if

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

There should be no recommendation for podlings. Mentors should guide the podling to making the right decision for their community by discussing the pros and cons of each model. The idea of a mentor bringing their preference, or worse the IPMC having a "default" is problematic. Sent from my

RE: How to get more mentors on podlings

. It could, otherwise, get expensive!! Upayavira On Sat, Oct 24, 2015, at 05:17 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > I see this as the Champions role. You could ask for volunteers, and it > will get you folks but you really want people who are invested. As a > champion I consider it my job to fund su

RE: How to get more mentors on podlings

mentors on podlings On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > As a champion I consider it my job to fund such folks. Ross, Can I get a list of projects you are championing? I want to figure out how to induce the mentors to go silent.

RE: How to get more mentors on podlings

I see this as the Champions role. You could ask for volunteers, and it will get you folks but you really want people who are invested. As a champion I consider it my job to fund such folks. Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D.

RE: When podlings don't file a report

Oct 19, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > This is one aspect that I feel needs fixing. Currently there are too many > people who "might" be responsible. What we need is someone who *is* > responsible. It's initially the mentors, but if (

RE: When podlings don't file a report

odlings don't file a report On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Your reply is fine, except that your original question was about what > happens when “If it turns out that the Mentors have been reminding the > podling to f

RE: When podlings don't file a report

's where the buck stops. Ross -Original Message- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:27 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: When podlings don't file a report On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com&

RE: When podlings don't file a report

Mentors, in my opinion, are not responsible for their podlings. They are responsible for guiding the podlings but not for filing. Mentors do have a responsibility to the IPMC to make a recommendation (e.g. "I've looked into the failure to report and am happy with the status, it's just busy

RE: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

Further to Sam's suggestion and observations below see Suggestion 0.1.8 at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013#Suggestions -Original Message- From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:26 AM To:

RE: Possible process improvement?

Great suggestion, can you modify the templates? All ASF committers have write access to the comdev site via the ASF CMS. Only ComDev contributors have commit there, so you might want to ping d...@community.apache.org if your change gets missed for some reason. Ross -Original Message-

RE: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

+1000 (though I would argue a single highly committed mentor is sufficient) -Original Message- From: Julian Hyde [mailto:jh...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:46 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion It's not activity on the

RE: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

If a project has infra requirements that are not “standard” for the ASF then these should, IMHO, be uncovered by the champion/mentors prior to proposal. If missed there then the discuss phase should uncover them. These should then be discussed with the infra team prior to vote. Ross

RE: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#proposal-template -Original Message- From: Andrew Bayer [mailto:andrew.ba...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 8:04 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings? Where

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating (rc1)

+1 (based only on an IP validation) The community need to address the items below, but they are not blockers. Ross -Original Message- From: Mariia Mykhailova [mailto:mamyk...@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:52 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE]

RE: Incubation capacity

With respect to " I hope that we can manage that a bit by pushing to recognize common points of reference, move on to points difference and only then start discussing solutions." I remind everyone of a perfect starting point for this - perhaps we can focus on constructively updating

RE: Require projects to have solid API docs

No. That’s not the role of the foundation. However, ensuring people contributing to the docs are recognized like any other contributor is the role of the foundation. Can you help contribute to such docs? Sent from Outlook Mail for Windows 10

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I blogged on this topic some time ago - basically it is my opinion that if I am a good employee I would never try to contribute code to an Apache project that is not beneficial to the broader community. Such an action would be detrimental to her employers business. Consequently, there is no

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I said *better* not *more* -Original Message- From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 2:34 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy > On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Ross Gardler <ros

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

No. Meaning that starting from a place of no-trust in an environment where trust is critical is wrong. Ross -Original Message- From: Pierre Smits [mailto:pierre.sm...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 2:26 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I'm not sure about this. In the past I've argued that we need mentors who *do* have a personal interest. Those are the ones least likely to be absent during incubation. I do agree that mentors must act in a neutral way. I would hope that if this were not the case then someone would speak up. I

RE: Should Apache VOTEs be in a first-come, first-serve queue?

+1 and given further comments from Tinkerpop community representatives I would say the mentors need to step up and explain what Apache is all about. Ross -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 8:49 AM To: Incubator

RE: Should Apache VOTEs be in a first-come, first-serve queue?

If you want the legal protection of the foundation then you need to learn to respect and understand why we work the way we do. That's what gives you legal protection. Voting +1 on a release is an indication that best effort due diligence has been conducted on the release. It takes time and

RE: Should Apache VOTEs be in a first-come, first-serve queue?

Like I said, your mentors are supposed to help you get the required binding votes. The problem is not one of the voting process. -Original Message- From: Marko Rodriguez [mailto:okramma...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 2:52 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re:

RE: Should Apache VOTEs be in a first-come, first-serve queue?

The number of votes is unimportant. Anyone not voting is implicitly voting +1 (or maybe +0). The minimum count of 3 is just to ensure there were enough eyes on formal decisions. If a podling is struggling to get the require 3 +1s then that is a problem for them mentors to help address. If you

RE: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32

-Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 8:57 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org; d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32 Moving comdev to BCC, adding dev@ripple as it should have been Ross From: Ross

RE: apache binary distributions

Probably best to ask the specific question about brand on the trademarks@ list. -Original Message- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:52 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Dennis Hamilton

RE: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32

Moving comdev to BCC, adding dev@ripple as it should have been Ross From: Ross Gardler Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 2:43 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org; ComDev d...@community.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32 A vote is underway on the Ripple Dev list for release 0.9.32

[VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32

A vote is underway on the Ripple Dev list for release 0.9.32. The Ripple dev thread can be found at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ripple-dev/201508.mbox/browser The text of the initial vote email is copied below for your convenience. At this point we have 2 IPMC votes and

RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?

Jim already addressed this in an overlapping email. I tried to address it but it seems quibbling over individual words describing process was more important than understanding the intended message. So let me try again, this time using the corrected words in my email and adding Jim's further

RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?

I do not agree with this interpretation when viewed from a legal angle (though I do agree from a trademark angle). I have a feeling that the root of my disagreement is the same as the root of Jim's earlier statement (though I may be mistaken). There are two points of IP due diligence in an

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >