You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> on 2016/11/07 21:50:18 UTC
[DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Hi,
As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra Admin
has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
I ask now:
1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
Thanks.
Cheers,
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Fwd: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
FYI -- on-going thread on general@incubator which you all likely are
interested in following.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 13:50:18 -0800
From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Hi,
As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
Admin
has OK\u2019ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
I ask now:
1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
Thanks.
Cheers,
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
It does, Joe, but the IPMC needs to decide whether to even *ask* ... It is
an entirely reasonable position to say that focusing primary development at
GitHub could hurt some aspect of ASF-style community building, and (thus)
the IPMC does not want to allow that.
Infra will start with OpenWhisk (if it becomes a podling and the IPMC
agrees with its plan). We'll examine if/how to expand the experiment to
future podlings, as requested.
So with my IPMC hat on: +1 to both.
With my Infra hat on: +1 has already been given to #1. #2 is TBD.
Cheers,
-g
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With regard to the second question I hope the ultimate decision still rests
> with Greg. This idea is fairly new and some baby steps are in order before
> opening the floodgates.
>
> IMO
>
> On Monday, November 7, 2016, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now
> has
> > requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> > Admin
> > has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
> >
> > I ask now:
> >
> > 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> > 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
> >
> > I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:;>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>.
With regard to the second question I hope the ultimate decision still rests
with Greg. This idea is fairly new and some baby steps are in order before
opening the floodgates.
IMO
On Monday, November 7, 2016, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> Admin
> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>
> I ask now:
>
> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>
> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Niall Pemberton
<ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...There could be issues down the road which means that this option is
> withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were
> later disappointed...
Same here, having one willing podling experiment is fine, but I
wouldn't do more than that until we have a clear view of what we can
support.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 11/09/2016 01:00 AM, Christopher wrote:
> Sorry if these questions have already been answered, but I'm still a bit
> confused, so if anybody can answer I'd be grateful.
>
> Why is GA for podlings being considered before GA for TLPs? Or, is GitHub
> already generally available to TLPs, and I missed that? If I didn't miss
> anything, what are the arguments in favor of and against enabling this for
> podlings first?
Likely because podlings are not TLPs, so they have more freedom in where
they put their source code before graduation. Once graduated, you HAVE
to follow the very specific ruleset of the ASF as a TLP. Podling
experiments going wrong is not nearly as 'deadly' as with a TLP.
>
> How does this relate to M.A.T.T.? Is that still being piloted, or is that
> now generally available to projects? Is this something different?
MATT will still play a vital role in linking accounts.
>
> Are we talking about granting PMCs admin on the repos, and committers
> write-access? Or, only PMC chair admin, or some other combination of access
> grants?
This will only be write-access to all committers. There will be no admin
access until we are confident that the granularity of the GitHub ACL is
sufficient for this.
>
> Will this enable projects to manage GitHub issue labels and milestones?
> That's been really sorely lacking in the Fluo podling since we transitioned
> to incubation from our previous GitHub home, and it'd be *really* nice to
> get that working again.
Yes, you will be able to set labels etc and work with GH issues.
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm +1 to this for OpenWhisk.
>> I'm -1 to this as a general availability.
>>
>> There could be issues down the road which means that this option is
>> withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were
>> later disappointed.
>>
>> Niall
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now
>> has
>>> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
>>> Admin
>>> has OK\u2019ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>>>
>>> I ask now:
>>>
>>> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
>>> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>>>
>>> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Sorry if these questions have already been answered, but I'm still a bit
confused, so if anybody can answer I'd be grateful.
Why is GA for podlings being considered before GA for TLPs? Or, is GitHub
already generally available to TLPs, and I missed that? If I didn't miss
anything, what are the arguments in favor of and against enabling this for
podlings first?
How does this relate to M.A.T.T.? Is that still being piloted, or is that
now generally available to projects? Is this something different?
Are we talking about granting PMCs admin on the repos, and committers
write-access? Or, only PMC chair admin, or some other combination of access
grants?
Will this enable projects to manage GitHub issue labels and milestones?
That's been really sorely lacking in the Fluo podling since we transitioned
to incubation from our previous GitHub home, and it'd be *really* nice to
get that working again.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm +1 to this for OpenWhisk.
> I'm -1 to this as a general availability.
>
> There could be issues down the road which means that this option is
> withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were
> later disappointed.
>
> Niall
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now
> has
> > requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> > Admin
> > has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
> >
> > I ask now:
> >
> > 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> > 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
> >
> > I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
I'm +1 to this for OpenWhisk.
I'm -1 to this as a general availability.
There could be issues down the road which means that this option is
withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were
later disappointed.
Niall
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> Admin
> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>
> I ask now:
>
> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>
> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
+1 to both in principle (yay), but with admin access not initially given to
podling committers; as that could encourage "business as usual" for adding
friends&family as committers without a vote.
So I agree that the transition of the existing repositories need to be
handled well.
On 7 Nov 2016 10:23 pm, "Chris Mattmann" <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> Admin
> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>
> I ask now:
>
> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>
> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Phil Sorber <so...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP hurdle.
> Has that been resolved?
LDAP is tens of hours worth of work - total. And I volunteered to do
the bulk of the initial effort. Frankly, it is more of a timing
consideration than either a cost or risk consideration. There will be
unanticipated breakage (probably mostly in tools like the phone book,
various whimsy tools, and ponymail) but those should be identified and
fixable quickly.
The right time seems to be shortly after people return from ACEU, so
probably early December.
- Sam Ruby
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 15:24 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
>> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
>> Admin
>> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>>
>> I ask now:
>>
>> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
>> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>>
>> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Phil Sorber <so...@apache.org>.
Reading the other thread on this it seems it has not yet. Let me know if
any external to infra help is wanted.
Thanks.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 16:29 Phil Sorber <so...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP
> hurdle. Has that been resolved?
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 15:24 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> Admin
> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>
> I ask now:
>
> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>
> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Phil Sorber <so...@apache.org>.
I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP hurdle.
Has that been resolved?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 15:24 Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> Admin
> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>
> I ask now:
>
> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>
> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> > As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see
> > podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors.
> > That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the
> > "incubator" group are NOT added, only mentors.
> >
>
> I'm a bit iffy here. IMHO, we cannot leave existing accounts in place on
> the organization, as we won't have ICLAs on file (except for a few who
> already exist I bet). What I don't want to see is the PPMC, for non-IPMC
> members, be given the ability to grant committer privileges to the repo
> without having an ICLA on file.
>
Well, this is a bunch of technical bits that Infra will take care of, to
ensure that we meet the needs defined by Legal Affairs, when operating
under "GitHub as Master".
I believe the IPMC *policy* point is more about community, rather than
these considerations. I'm comfortable we can meet Legal's needs before/for
graduation (tho I can't give a timeframe). The outstanding question is
whether we're being *asked* to do so.
If IPMC defines some additional requirements that we haven't foreseen (eg.
every IPMC members gets commit on the podling), then we can figure out the
feasibility.
Cheers,
-g
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:45 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
>> > answered to be able to move forward on this.
>> >
>> > - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL.
>> > Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator, I expect that the
>> > "OpenWhisk" organization be handed over to us, and all non-IPMC members
>> are
>> > removed. Once we receive ICLAs members are granted access back. Or the
>> > equivalent - we create a new "ApacheOpenWhisk" organization.
>> >
>> > - All committers who are in the "incubator" group are granted write
>> access
>> > to OpenWhisk
>>
>> I have strong opinions on this subject too, and they don't match
>> yours. It happens. :-)
>>
>
> And I honestly wouldn't want them to match.
>
> In my opinion, for this to happen, we need to finish up the LDAP work,
> allowing each podling to be given a separate permission set. I would
> generally prefer that approach.
Cool.
>> As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see
>> podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors.
>> That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the
>> "incubator" group are NOT added, only mentors.
>>
>
> I'm a bit iffy here. IMHO, we cannot leave existing accounts in place on
> the organization, as we won't have ICLAs on file (except for a few who
> already exist I bet). What I don't want to see is the PPMC, for non-IPMC
> members, be given the ability to grant committer privileges to the repo
> without having an ICLA on file.
Good point.
- Sam Ruby
>> That being said, as the person who volunteered to set up LDAP for
>> podlings, I will set aside my preference in favor of the consensus of
>> the IPMC. Logistically, however, giving every member of the incubator
>> group write access to an existing GitHub repository would be a
>> nightmare. Granting mentors (a much smaller set) would be a smaller
>> set.
>>
>> > - the ASF still needs to maintain records of the revision history. I
>> would
>> > like to understand the plan to provide this history.
>>
>> Here's an example:
>>
>> https://matt.apache.org/pushlogs.html?repo=whimsy
>>
>> > I'm not very comfortable with a policy that allows podlings to do things
>> > they can't do as TLPs. This is setting up for major delays in
>> graduation.
>>
>> The goal, for quite some time now, has been to resolve GitHub as a
>> Master one way or another. It is time to do so. If the conclusion is
>> that GitHub as a Master is not to be, OpenWhisk will need to be
>> migrated at that time. Until then, there is no reason to migrate it
>> only to potentially migrate it back.
>>
>> > John
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:23 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now
>> has
>> >> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
>> >> Admin
>> >> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>> >>
>> >> I ask now:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
>> >> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>> >>
>> >> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
> > answered to be able to move forward on this.
> >
> > - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL.
> > Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator, I expect that the
> > "OpenWhisk" organization be handed over to us, and all non-IPMC members
> are
> > removed. Once we receive ICLAs members are granted access back. Or the
> > equivalent - we create a new "ApacheOpenWhisk" organization.
> >
> > - All committers who are in the "incubator" group are granted write
> access
> > to OpenWhisk
>
> I have strong opinions on this subject too, and they don't match
> yours. It happens. :-)
>
And I honestly wouldn't want them to match.
In my opinion, for this to happen, we need to finish up the LDAP work,
allowing each podling to be given a separate permission set. I would
generally prefer that approach.
>
> As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see
> podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors.
> That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the
> "incubator" group are NOT added, only mentors.
>
I'm a bit iffy here. IMHO, we cannot leave existing accounts in place on
the organization, as we won't have ICLAs on file (except for a few who
already exist I bet). What I don't want to see is the PPMC, for non-IPMC
members, be given the ability to grant committer privileges to the repo
without having an ICLA on file.
>
> That being said, as the person who volunteered to set up LDAP for
> podlings, I will set aside my preference in favor of the consensus of
> the IPMC. Logistically, however, giving every member of the incubator
> group write access to an existing GitHub repository would be a
> nightmare. Granting mentors (a much smaller set) would be a smaller
> set.
>
> > - the ASF still needs to maintain records of the revision history. I
> would
> > like to understand the plan to provide this history.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> https://matt.apache.org/pushlogs.html?repo=whimsy
>
> > I'm not very comfortable with a policy that allows podlings to do things
> > they can't do as TLPs. This is setting up for major delays in
> graduation.
>
> The goal, for quite some time now, has been to resolve GitHub as a
> Master one way or another. It is time to do so. If the conclusion is
> that GitHub as a Master is not to be, OpenWhisk will need to be
> migrated at that time. Until then, there is no reason to migrate it
> only to potentially migrate it back.
>
> > John
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:23 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now
> has
> >> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> >> Admin
> >> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
> >>
> >> I ask now:
> >>
> >> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> >> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
> >>
> >> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
There are clearly some issues to work out. These boil down to
a) technical. IPMC doesn't need to vote on that. Greg and Dan and Infra can
vote by doing or not.
b) policy details about who gets which permissions and when. I think that
these can be solved by discussion and consensus and don't even necessarily
need to be locked down completely as a condition of approval. In fact,
admitting that there is likely to be something that causes a small rethink
is probably a good stance.
c) the general willingness to go forward assuming technical assurances from
infra and confidence that (b) can be resolved.
Item (c) really seems to be the only matter to be considered by the IPMC.
I am:
+1 on (c), which implies I think it is OK to
solve (b) in a bit of an agile fashion by doing rather than
over-designing
defer to infra on (a)
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
> > answered to be able to move forward on this.
> >
> > - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL.
> > Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator, I expect that the
> > "OpenWhisk" organization be handed over to us, and all non-IPMC members
> are
> > removed. Once we receive ICLAs members are granted access back. Or the
> > equivalent - we create a new "ApacheOpenWhisk" organization.
> >
> > - All committers who are in the "incubator" group are granted write
> access
> > to OpenWhisk
>
> I have strong opinions on this subject too, and they don't match
> yours. It happens. :-)
>
> As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see
> podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors.
> That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the
> "incubator" group are NOT added, only mentors.
>
> That being said, as the person who volunteered to set up LDAP for
> podlings, I will set aside my preference in favor of the consensus of
> the IPMC. Logistically, however, giving every member of the incubator
> group write access to an existing GitHub repository would be a
> nightmare. Granting mentors (a much smaller set) would be a smaller
> set.
>
> > - the ASF still needs to maintain records of the revision history. I
> would
> > like to understand the plan to provide this history.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> https://matt.apache.org/pushlogs.html?repo=whimsy
>
> > I'm not very comfortable with a policy that allows podlings to do things
> > they can't do as TLPs. This is setting up for major delays in
> graduation.
>
> The goal, for quite some time now, has been to resolve GitHub as a
> Master one way or another. It is time to do so. If the conclusion is
> that GitHub as a Master is not to be, OpenWhisk will need to be
> migrated at that time. Until then, there is no reason to migrate it
> only to potentially migrate it back.
>
> > John
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:23 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now
> has
> >> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> >> Admin
> >> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
> >>
> >> I ask now:
> >>
> >> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> >> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
> >>
> >> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
> answered to be able to move forward on this.
>
> - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL.
> Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator, I expect that the
> "OpenWhisk" organization be handed over to us, and all non-IPMC members are
> removed. Once we receive ICLAs members are granted access back. Or the
> equivalent - we create a new "ApacheOpenWhisk" organization.
>
> - All committers who are in the "incubator" group are granted write access
> to OpenWhisk
I have strong opinions on this subject too, and they don't match
yours. It happens. :-)
As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see
podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors.
That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the
"incubator" group are NOT added, only mentors.
That being said, as the person who volunteered to set up LDAP for
podlings, I will set aside my preference in favor of the consensus of
the IPMC. Logistically, however, giving every member of the incubator
group write access to an existing GitHub repository would be a
nightmare. Granting mentors (a much smaller set) would be a smaller
set.
> - the ASF still needs to maintain records of the revision history. I would
> like to understand the plan to provide this history.
Here's an example:
https://matt.apache.org/pushlogs.html?repo=whimsy
> I'm not very comfortable with a policy that allows podlings to do things
> they can't do as TLPs. This is setting up for major delays in graduation.
The goal, for quite some time now, has been to resolve GitHub as a
Master one way or another. It is time to do so. If the conclusion is
that GitHub as a Master is not to be, OpenWhisk will need to be
migrated at that time. Until then, there is no reason to migrate it
only to potentially migrate it back.
> John
- Sam Ruby
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:23 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
>> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
>> Admin
>> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>>
>> I ask now:
>>
>> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
>> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>>
>> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
answered to be able to move forward on this.
- Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL.
Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator, I expect that the
"OpenWhisk" organization be handed over to us, and all non-IPMC members are
removed. Once we receive ICLAs members are granted access back. Or the
equivalent - we create a new "ApacheOpenWhisk" organization.
- All committers who are in the "incubator" group are granted write access
to OpenWhisk
- the ASF still needs to maintain records of the revision history. I would
like to understand the plan to provide this history.
I'm not very comfortable with a policy that allows podlings to do things
they can't do as TLPs. This is setting up for major delays in graduation.
John
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:23 PM Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra
> Admin
> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
>
> I ask now:
>
> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings?
>
> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>