You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com> on 2013/06/17 19:37:36 UTC
Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Debo Dutta, cc'ed, from Cisco, will be joining the project and it took a
bit of time to get it sorted.
I realize this is a late request as the VOTE is already running .. is it ok
to add him now? ;-)
If not we will bring him after the project starts.
Cheers,
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1
650 265 8311
blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial
committer?
Posted by "Debo Dutta (dedutta)" <de...@cisco.com>.
Thanks a lot Sanjiva, Ross, Afkham!
debo
From: Afkham Azeez <af...@gmail.com>>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:05:14 +0530
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>>
Cc: Debo~ Dutta <de...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Added Debo to the initial committer list.
Azeez
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>> wrote:
I have not closed the vote yet because it ran over the weekend. I did
state I would leave it running into this week.
As champion I have no objection to you adding Debo. Ultimately it
reduces unnecessary traffic on this list since we won't have to
formally vote him in.
Ross
On 17 June 2013 18:37, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com>> wrote:
> Debo Dutta, cc'ed, from Cisco, will be joining the project and it took a
> bit of time to get it sorted.
>
> I realize this is a late request as the VOTE is already running .. is it ok
> to add him now? ;-)
>
> If not we will bring him after the project starts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sanjiva.
> --
> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
> email: sanjiva@wso2.com<ma...@wso2.com>; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1
> 650 265 8311
> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
>
> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
--
Afkham Azeez
Director of Architecture; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com,
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
email: azeez@wso2.com<ma...@wso2.com> cell: +94 77 3320919
blog: http://blog.afkham.org
twitter: http://twitter.com/afkham_azeez
linked-in: http://lk.linkedin.com/in/afkhamazeez
Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Afkham Azeez <af...@gmail.com>.
Added Debo to the initial committer list.
Azeez
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> I have not closed the vote yet because it ran over the weekend. I did
> state I would leave it running into this week.
>
> As champion I have no objection to you adding Debo. Ultimately it
> reduces unnecessary traffic on this list since we won't have to
> formally vote him in.
>
> Ross
>
> On 17 June 2013 18:37, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com> wrote:
> > Debo Dutta, cc'ed, from Cisco, will be joining the project and it took a
> > bit of time to get it sorted.
> >
> > I realize this is a late request as the VOTE is already running .. is it
> ok
> > to add him now? ;-)
> >
> > If not we will bring him after the project starts.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> > --
> > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
> > email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880
> | +1
> > 650 265 8311
> > blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
> >
> > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
*Afkham Azeez*
Director of Architecture; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com,
*Member; Apache Software Foundation;
**http://www.apache.org/*<http://www.apache.org/>
*
*
*email: **azeez@wso2.com* <az...@wso2.com>* cell: +94 77 3320919
blog: **http://blog.afkham.org* <http://blog.afkham.org>*
twitter: **http://twitter.com/afkham_azeez*<http://twitter.com/afkham_azeez>
*
linked-in: **http://lk.linkedin.com/in/afkhamazeez*
*
*
*Lean . Enterprise . Middleware*
*
*
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
I have not closed the vote yet because it ran over the weekend. I did
state I would leave it running into this week.
As champion I have no objection to you adding Debo. Ultimately it
reduces unnecessary traffic on this list since we won't have to
formally vote him in.
Ross
On 17 June 2013 18:37, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com> wrote:
> Debo Dutta, cc'ed, from Cisco, will be joining the project and it took a
> bit of time to get it sorted.
>
> I realize this is a late request as the VOTE is already running .. is it ok
> to add him now? ;-)
>
> If not we will bring him after the project starts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sanjiva.
> --
> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
> email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1
> 650 265 8311
> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
>
> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com>.
I'm also not worried about figuring out how to do stuff .. :-).
Sanjiva.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> C'mon Marvin. The project has enough ASF committers on the initial
> commiter list (ignoring mentors) to be able to conduct a committer
> vote.
>
> Lets not add unnecessary bureaucracy during the initial set-up phase.
>
> Ross
>
> On 17 June 2013 19:01, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com>
> wrote:
> >> Debo Dutta, cc'ed, from Cisco, will be joining the project and it took a
> >> bit of time to get it sorted.
> >>
> >> I realize this is a late request as the VOTE is already running .. is
> it ok
> >> to add him now? ;-)
> >>
> >> If not we will bring him after the project starts.
> >
> > Voting in a new committer is a useful exercise for a fledgling PPMC.
> > Think of this as an opportunity. :)
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1
650 265 8311
blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com>.
C'mon Tim this was not done as a "social norms can be overridden/bullied
occasionally by headstrong, salty old-timers" thing at all. It was
something that seemed small and simple and innocent.
However if its such a major thing then the PPMC can vote Debo in as soon as
it starts. No biggie. Honest. Really not worth all this email.
I'm afraid to re-edit the proposal to remove him ... not sure what the
right/safe thing is.
Incubator has become even more interesting since the last time I was active
in it ;-).
Cheers,
Sanjiva.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > I respectfully suggest your intervention is an example of ISSUE 03 (too
> > many cooks). As a champion I'm interested in podlings learning the Apache
> > Way - a significant part of this is to not let unnecessary process get in
> > the way of software development.
> >
> > The vote is still open and can be stopped with a veto. This is a
> reversible
> > step. It is done in full view of the voting community. No harm is done
> and
> > a little extra work for a number of volunteers is avoided.
>
> C'mon, it's frustrating that folks are now casting Marvin as an
> annoying "rule follower". For all votes here, you review a
> proposal/RC/committer candidate, you vote. And that vote is based on
> the state of the proposal as it were when you voted. That the proposal
> is immutable is a well-established social norm, certainly not news to
> you, Sanjiva, or anyone else...
>
> A voter should be able to vote and forget about it. They shouldn't
> need to constantly go back and look for changes since casting their
> vote. No one would, for example, allow this sort of nonsense in a
> release candidate vote.
>
> Debo didn't have things worked out in time, not a big deal; vote them
> in after the proposal succeeds, that's truly a trivial exercise for
> such a distinguished list of folks.
>
> Another option is to discount votes prior to the last mutation. Or,
> we add a wiki page that explains to new folks how the social norms can
> be overridden/bullied occasionally by headstrong, salty old-timers as
> they see fit...
>
> Thanks,
> --tim
>
> > Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> > On 18 Jun 2013 03:18, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Ross Gardler
> >> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> >> > C'mon Marvin. The project has enough ASF committers on the initial
> >> > commiter list (ignoring mentors) to be able to conduct a committer
> >> > vote.
> >> >
> >> > Lets not add unnecessary bureaucracy during the initial set-up phase.
> >>
> >> Voting in a new committer isn't a lot of work, and Stratos has a lot of
> >> resources behind it. Following the rules wouldn't have been a big deal.
> >>
> >> I'm not prepared to blow up the Incubator over this issue, though --
> only
> >> to
> >> ask nicely.
> >>
> >> If Stratos later experiences frustration regarding the Incubator's
> >> conflicting
> >> rules and inconsistent enforcement of rules, now they'll know where that
> >> comes
> >> from.
> >>
> >> Marvin Humphrey
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
>
>
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1
650 265 8311
blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial
committer?
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 08:49:55PM -0700, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:49:51PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >> +<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
> >> + No further changes are accepted.</p>
> >
> > Can I suggest that you make explicit the option to cancel the vote, amend the
> > proposal, and re-start the vote? This document is facing "new" people who
> > might otherwise get the false impression that once a vote is started, that's it
> > --- "sink or swim", based on whatever the proposal was at that point in time.
>
> Hi Daniel, I'll volunteer to take point on documenting this issue.
>
Thanks.
> Therefore, unless there are objections, I plan to strike the material on the
> "Process Description" page, leaving the only copy at the canonical location of
> the proposal guide.
+1 to the idea that policy should exist only at one, canonical location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Done - but please note this is the last edit I am doing on this topic.
I do not agree with the necessaity for this rule. If the IPMC wants to
make further clarifications then go for it. I have more improtant
things to do.
Index: content/incubation/Process_Description.html
===================================================================
--- content/incubation/Process_Description.html
(.../production/incubator) (revision 866266)
+++ content/incubation/Process_Description.html
(.../staging/incubator/trunk) (revision 866266)
@@ -232,7 +232,10 @@
typically take about 7-10 days before announcing a vote result.
</p>
<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
- No further changes are accepted.</p>
+ No further changes are accepted. If a change is required
after the vote
+ has been called then the vote should be cancelled, the
change made, and
+ the vote restarted. Alternatively, mentors will advise on how to make
+ the change once the proposal has been accepted if this is
approproate.</p>
<p>If that vote is affirmative, the Sponsor (unless the Sponsor is
already the Incubator PMC) will propose to the
On 19 June 2013 00:01, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:49:51PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> +<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
>> + No further changes are accepted.</p>
>
> Can I suggest that you make explicit the option to cancel the vote, amend the
> proposal, and re-start the vote? This document is facing "new" people who
> might otherwise get the false impression that once a vote is started, that's it
> --- "sink or swim", based on whatever the proposal was at that point in time.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:49:51PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> +<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
>> + No further changes are accepted.</p>
>
> Can I suggest that you make explicit the option to cancel the vote, amend the
> proposal, and re-start the vote? This document is facing "new" people who
> might otherwise get the false impression that once a vote is started, that's it
> --- "sink or swim", based on whatever the proposal was at that point in time.
Hi Daniel, I'll volunteer to take point on documenting this issue.
The "Process Description" page is ostensibly an overview:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html#Introduction
This document is an overview of the process. Read it in conjunction with
the "Incubation Policy" and the various guides...
No policy documentation should ever exist exclusively on an overview page.
This material belongs at
<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#vote>, which I have now
updated to address your concerns.
In my view, this material is not integral to an overview, as it is only needed
by Champions. Everyone else who might be tempted to update the wiki is
protected from error if the Champion (or some other industrious volunteer)
updates the wiki per the instructions.
Therefore, unless there are objections, I plan to strike the material on the
"Process Description" page, leaving the only copy at the canonical location of
the proposal guide.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial
committer?
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:49:51PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> +<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
> + No further changes are accepted.</p>
Can I suggest that you make explicit the option to cancel the vote, amend the
proposal, and re-start the vote? This document is facing "new" people who
might otherwise get the false impression that once a vote is started, that's it
--- "sink or swim", based on whatever the proposal was at that point in time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> He said majority, not everybody ant. Try a little harder to
> understand the written words instead of needing to interject
> your dissonant 2 cents and things will improve around here.
>
>
Don't be so abrasive Joe, I'm a mentor for this podling so I'm at least as
entitled as everyone else to express my view. If you must be pedantic he
said majority of IPMC which we certainly haven't had in this thread, and a
quick tally of comments in this thread so far actually shows most are
saying its fine to do this (unless i've counted wrong?).
...ant
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
He said majority, not everybody ant. Try a little harder to
understand the written words instead of needing to interject
your dissonant 2 cents and things will improve around here.
Anyway the point is that when you see multiple changes to an
in-progress VOTE on a proposal, it suggests not that we
need to be more flexible, or let the champion dictate common
courtesy, but instead that the VOTE should restart once the
dust has settled as it was clearly premature. If there's
some rush to modify the document instead of following approved
policy on adding new committers (which formally doesn't even
require a vote), just cancel+restart the vote once the proposal is
done being modified. It's the most respectful thing to do.
----- Original Message -----
> From: ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>
>> It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
>> on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
>>
>>
> Don't assume its that clear, i think at least some agree with you that this
> is just ISSUE3 and kept quiet, thats what i did.
>
> I think its fine, its nothing like changing a release artifact during a
> release, IMHO the way to judge it is if the champion for the proposal being
> voted on doesn't object to the addition, if the champion is ok then just
> carry on.
>
> ...ant
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
> on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
>
>
Don't assume its that clear, i think at least some agree with you that this
is just ISSUE3 and kept quiet, thats what i did.
I think its fine, its nothing like changing a release artifact during a
release, IMHO the way to judge it is if the champion for the proposal being
voted on doesn't object to the addition, if the champion is ok then just
carry on.
...ant
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the interest of being a bit pedantic, I think that most people are OK
> with some changes to votes in progress. In particular, extending the
> declared time for a vote is generally acceptable to most of the communities
> I have seen it in.
Solution: use the modern variant, "This vote will remain open for at
least 72 hours."
http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=%22open+for+at+least+72+hours%22
That way we don't get mail traffic fretting about vote cutoffs.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
> on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
>
In the interest of being a bit pedantic, I think that most people are OK
with some changes to votes in progress. In particular, extending the
declared time for a vote is generally acceptable to most of the communities
I have seen it in.
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Thanks Marvin.
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 19 Jun 2013 06:19, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > I trust someone who believes this is a fixed rule rather than a
> > social-norm by which we are guided will now go and document it
> > appropriately in [2] (see ISSUE 09 [1]).
>
> Your change to the "process description" page seems fine to me.
>
> I also went and augmented the proposal guide with a wiki snippet which can
> be
> copied and pasted into a proposal wiki page to mark it as final.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#vote
>
> Index: content/guides/proposal.xml
> ===================================================================
> --- content/guides/proposal.xml (revision 1494448)
> +++ content/guides/proposal.xml (working copy)
> @@ -187,8 +187,15 @@
> proposal should be put to the <a href='entry.html#vote'>vote</a>. If
> the wiki is
> used to develop the proposal, please ensure that the wiki matches the
> final
> proposal then add a notice to the wiki that development of the document is
> -now complete.
> +now complete:
> </p>
> +<source>
> +----
> +/!\ '''FINAL''' /!\
> +
> +This proposal is now complete and has been submitted for a VOTE.
> +----
> +</source>
> </section>
> </section>
> <section id="proposal-template">
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> I trust someone who believes this is a fixed rule rather than a
> social-norm by which we are guided will now go and document it
> appropriately in [2] (see ISSUE 09 [1]).
Your change to the "process description" page seems fine to me.
I also went and augmented the proposal guide with a wiki snippet which can be
copied and pasted into a proposal wiki page to mark it as final.
Marvin Humphrey
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#vote
Index: content/guides/proposal.xml
===================================================================
--- content/guides/proposal.xml (revision 1494448)
+++ content/guides/proposal.xml (working copy)
@@ -187,8 +187,15 @@
proposal should be put to the <a href='entry.html#vote'>vote</a>. If
the wiki is
used to develop the proposal, please ensure that the wiki matches the final
proposal then add a notice to the wiki that development of the document is
-now complete.
+now complete:
</p>
+<source>
+----
+/!\ '''FINAL''' /!\
+
+This proposal is now complete and has been submitted for a VOTE.
+----
+</source>
</section>
</section>
<section id="proposal-template">
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com>.
The Apache way is *"community over code"*, as a healthy community we
should encourage community growth. IMO I do not consider adding a new
member to the initial committer list as a big change to the proposal.
In fact, now I believe if we had a separate VOTE for him, we will not
have this much traffic in this thread.
Deepal
> It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
> on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
>
> I note that this change is different to the trademark promise made
> earlier since that one had been agreed in the discuss thread. That
> change was merely bringing the proposal into line with the discussion.
> This change was discussed after the vote had been called, which is
> quite different.
>
> I can also understand the concern that there is a potential for a
> "slippery slope" here (although I will note this is not the first time
> proposals have been tweaked during a vote - which should just be a
> formality since consensus is gauged through discussion).
>
> I am disappointed that following (what appears to be) unwritten rules
> to the letter rather than in the spirit of community development is
> more important to the IPMC members who have spoken, but I have to
> accept the majority opinion.
>
> I consider my wrists well and truly slapped and appreciate that nobody
> has gone so far as to veto the vote.
>
> I trust someone who believes this is a fixed rule rather than a
> social-norm by which we are guided will now go and document it
> appropriately in [2] (see ISSUE 09 [1]).
>
> (I keep wanting to delete that last sentence as it feels like a
> parting shot - it's not meant that way, it is an important point.
> I don't agree with this new rule, but I do appear to be in the minority. In
> an attempt to prove it's not a parting shot I've make the change
> myself in r866129:
>
> Index: content/incubation/Process_Description.html
> ===================================================================
> --- content/incubation/Process_Description.html
> (.../production/incubator) (revision 866128)
> +++ content/incubation/Process_Description.html
> (.../staging/incubator/trunk) (revision 866128)
> @@ -231,6 +231,8 @@
> getting feedback about what is actually happening. The Sponsor will
> typically take about 7-10 days before announcing a vote result.
> </p>
> +<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
> + No further changes are accepted.</p>
> <p>If that vote is affirmative, the Sponsor (unless the Sponsor is
> already the Incubator PMC) will propose to the
>
> )
>
> Ross
>
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013#Issue_09_-_People_do_not_follow_through_to_improve_Incubator_documentation
> [2] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html
>
> On 18 June 2013 17:12, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> However, in this specific case the social norm *should* be to allow the
>>> change to proceed - that's the most efficient process.
>> Modifying a vote that has started is a slippery slope. (The same is true for
>> reusing version numbers: ANY change to something that has been tagged must get
>> a new version number - no matter how small the change may be.) One solution is
>> to restart the vote. Another is to run a parallel vote for the delta/amendment.
>>
>> Concretely, can't you just start a thread on private@ saying "The would-be-PPMC
>> has consensus on inviting X as a committer"? This would allow you to invite X
>> to be a committer shortly after the original vote ends.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
I note that this change is different to the trademark promise made
earlier since that one had been agreed in the discuss thread. That
change was merely bringing the proposal into line with the discussion.
This change was discussed after the vote had been called, which is
quite different.
I can also understand the concern that there is a potential for a
"slippery slope" here (although I will note this is not the first time
proposals have been tweaked during a vote - which should just be a
formality since consensus is gauged through discussion).
I am disappointed that following (what appears to be) unwritten rules
to the letter rather than in the spirit of community development is
more important to the IPMC members who have spoken, but I have to
accept the majority opinion.
I consider my wrists well and truly slapped and appreciate that nobody
has gone so far as to veto the vote.
I trust someone who believes this is a fixed rule rather than a
social-norm by which we are guided will now go and document it
appropriately in [2] (see ISSUE 09 [1]).
(I keep wanting to delete that last sentence as it feels like a
parting shot - it's not meant that way, it is an important point.
I don't agree with this new rule, but I do appear to be in the minority. In
an attempt to prove it's not a parting shot I've make the change
myself in r866129:
Index: content/incubation/Process_Description.html
===================================================================
--- content/incubation/Process_Description.html
(.../production/incubator) (revision 866128)
+++ content/incubation/Process_Description.html
(.../staging/incubator/trunk) (revision 866128)
@@ -231,6 +231,8 @@
getting feedback about what is actually happening. The Sponsor will
typically take about 7-10 days before announcing a vote result.
</p>
+<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
+ No further changes are accepted.</p>
<p>If that vote is affirmative, the Sponsor (unless the Sponsor is
already the Incubator PMC) will propose to the
)
Ross
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013#Issue_09_-_People_do_not_follow_through_to_improve_Incubator_documentation
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html
On 18 June 2013 17:12, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> However, in this specific case the social norm *should* be to allow the
>> change to proceed - that's the most efficient process.
>
> Modifying a vote that has started is a slippery slope. (The same is true for
> reusing version numbers: ANY change to something that has been tagged must get
> a new version number - no matter how small the change may be.) One solution is
> to restart the vote. Another is to run a parallel vote for the delta/amendment.
>
> Concretely, can't you just start a thread on private@ saying "The would-be-PPMC
> has consensus on inviting X as a committer"? This would allow you to invite X
> to be a committer shortly after the original vote ends.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial
committer?
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> However, in this specific case the social norm *should* be to allow the
> change to proceed - that's the most efficient process.
Modifying a vote that has started is a slippery slope. (The same is true for
reusing version numbers: ANY change to something that has been tagged must get
a new version number - no matter how small the change may be.) One solution is
to restart the vote. Another is to run a parallel vote for the delta/amendment.
Concretely, can't you just start a thread on private@ saying "The would-be-PPMC
has consensus on inviting X as a committer"? This would allow you to invite X
to be a committer shortly after the original vote ends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013, at 05:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > For me the social norm *should* be to allow things to progress
> > unhindered unless an action is non-reversible and potentially damaging
> > to the community.
>
> No. That's not acceptable to me as an IPMC member.
>
> VOTEs are tied to specific language.
>
> Trivial conveniences do not justify corrupting the fundamental voting
> mechanism.
>
> > If people want to adopt the inefficient process then fair enough,
> > someone inform me they will veto the vote unless we revert the change.
> > I'll comply with the rules if someone wants to insist. But this is a
> > discussion and I believe it's a waste of time.
>
> So long no one contends that this sets a precedent, I would prefer that
> we let
> things slide this time.
Regardless of how trivial the change was, deciding whether or not the
change is trivial requires a judgement, and each of us may make that
judgement differently (surprising *are* making that judgement
differently). That cannot be the basis of a vote - we need to know what
we are voting on without each vote participant being expected to judge
something as either weighty or trivial.
It is so much simpler for everyone to follow the rules when something
happens. The simplest thing is for us to accept that we are voting on
the version of the proposal that was current at the time the vote was
initiated. As I understand it, if the change was Sanjiva saying he won't
claim the trademark, then that's great - he can say it here, or update
the proposal doc or whatever, to reassure people, but the relevant
document was essentially fixed at the time the vote was called, and
substantive issues in it need to be handled in other ways.
Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> For me the social norm *should* be to allow things to progress
>> unhindered unless an action is non-reversible and potentially damaging
>> to the community.
>
> No. That's not acceptable to me as an IPMC member.
>
> VOTEs are tied to specific language.
Agreed. It is trivial to use the proper procedures to add new committers.
This episode does not justify a precedent of amendments to a document while
we are supposed to be evaluating and voting on it as offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> For me the social norm *should* be to allow things to progress
> unhindered unless an action is non-reversible and potentially damaging
> to the community.
No. That's not acceptable to me as an IPMC member.
VOTEs are tied to specific language.
Trivial conveniences do not justify corrupting the fundamental voting
mechanism.
> If people want to adopt the inefficient process then fair enough,
> someone inform me they will veto the vote unless we revert the change.
> I'll comply with the rules if someone wants to insist. But this is a
> discussion and I believe it's a waste of time.
So long no one contends that this sets a precedent, I would prefer that we let
things slide this time.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 18 June 2013 13:04, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another option is to discount votes prior to the last mutation. Or,
> we add a wiki page that explains to new folks how the social norms can
> be overridden/bullied occasionally by headstrong, salty old-timers as
> they see fit...
Nice observation (and yes I am taking it in the fun sense I believe
you intend it). In the same veign I would say that it's time we
stopped the IPMC being ruled by the petty rules that have no value.
Let me explain..
You correctly refer to the grounds of this complaint as a social-norm.
I contest that this is an incorrect social norm that is being applied
as a rule. This is a symptom of ISSUE 03.
For me the social norm *should* be to allow things to progress
unhindered unless an action is non-reversible and potentially damaging
to the community.
I claim there is ZERO damage potential from this change. Being a
committer brings no authority over release votes etc. It is up to the
Champion and mentors to guide the podling not the IPMC. Sure the IPMC
provides oversight, but they shouldn't be meddling unless the Champion
and Mentors are failing in their duties. I claim that a mentors duty
is to ensure podlings know how to be efficient and inclusive. That
includes knowing the difference between a potentially destructive
change and a constructive one.
I think you would be hard pushed to find any occasion where those
"headstrong, salty old-timers" would push a social norm which *needs*
to be applied in any given circumstance. There is a reason for that -
those salty old timers have seen most of these things before (and Tim,
you do realise you count as an old-timer, perhaps just not as salty as
me ;-)
If Sanjiva sought to reverse the agreed trademark change then I would
refuse and/or veto the vote. If I didn't then I'd expect someone else
in the IPMC to do so. However, in this specific case the social norm
*should* be to allow the change to proceed - that's the most efficient
process.
If people want to adopt the inefficient process then fair enough,
someone inform me they will veto the vote unless we revert the change.
I'll comply with the rules if someone wants to insist. But this is a
discussion and I believe it's a waste of time.
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> I respectfully suggest your intervention is an example of ISSUE 03 (too
> many cooks). As a champion I'm interested in podlings learning the Apache
> Way - a significant part of this is to not let unnecessary process get in
> the way of software development.
>
> The vote is still open and can be stopped with a veto. This is a reversible
> step. It is done in full view of the voting community. No harm is done and
> a little extra work for a number of volunteers is avoided.
C'mon, it's frustrating that folks are now casting Marvin as an
annoying "rule follower". For all votes here, you review a
proposal/RC/committer candidate, you vote. And that vote is based on
the state of the proposal as it were when you voted. That the proposal
is immutable is a well-established social norm, certainly not news to
you, Sanjiva, or anyone else...
A voter should be able to vote and forget about it. They shouldn't
need to constantly go back and look for changes since casting their
vote. No one would, for example, allow this sort of nonsense in a
release candidate vote.
Debo didn't have things worked out in time, not a big deal; vote them
in after the proposal succeeds, that's truly a trivial exercise for
such a distinguished list of folks.
Another option is to discount votes prior to the last mutation. Or,
we add a wiki page that explains to new folks how the social norms can
be overridden/bullied occasionally by headstrong, salty old-timers as
they see fit...
Thanks,
--tim
> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> On 18 Jun 2013 03:18, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Ross Gardler
>> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> > C'mon Marvin. The project has enough ASF committers on the initial
>> > commiter list (ignoring mentors) to be able to conduct a committer
>> > vote.
>> >
>> > Lets not add unnecessary bureaucracy during the initial set-up phase.
>>
>> Voting in a new committer isn't a lot of work, and Stratos has a lot of
>> resources behind it. Following the rules wouldn't have been a big deal.
>>
>> I'm not prepared to blow up the Incubator over this issue, though -- only
>> to
>> ask nicely.
>>
>> If Stratos later experiences frustration regarding the Incubator's
>> conflicting
>> rules and inconsistent enforcement of rules, now they'll know where that
>> comes
>> from.
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
I respectfully suggest your intervention is an example of ISSUE 03 (too
many cooks). As a champion I'm interested in podlings learning the Apache
Way - a significant part of this is to not let unnecessary process get in
the way of software development.
The vote is still open and can be stopped with a veto. This is a reversible
step. It is done in full view of the voting community. No harm is done and
a little extra work for a number of volunteers is avoided.
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 18 Jun 2013 03:18, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > C'mon Marvin. The project has enough ASF committers on the initial
> > commiter list (ignoring mentors) to be able to conduct a committer
> > vote.
> >
> > Lets not add unnecessary bureaucracy during the initial set-up phase.
>
> Voting in a new committer isn't a lot of work, and Stratos has a lot of
> resources behind it. Following the rules wouldn't have been a big deal.
>
> I'm not prepared to blow up the Incubator over this issue, though -- only
> to
> ask nicely.
>
> If Stratos later experiences frustration regarding the Incubator's
> conflicting
> rules and inconsistent enforcement of rules, now they'll know where that
> comes
> from.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> C'mon Marvin. The project has enough ASF committers on the initial
> commiter list (ignoring mentors) to be able to conduct a committer
> vote.
>
> Lets not add unnecessary bureaucracy during the initial set-up phase.
Voting in a new committer isn't a lot of work, and Stratos has a lot of
resources behind it. Following the rules wouldn't have been a big deal.
I'm not prepared to blow up the Incubator over this issue, though -- only to
ask nicely.
If Stratos later experiences frustration regarding the Incubator's conflicting
rules and inconsistent enforcement of rules, now they'll know where that comes
from.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
C'mon Marvin. The project has enough ASF committers on the initial
commiter list (ignoring mentors) to be able to conduct a committer
vote.
Lets not add unnecessary bureaucracy during the initial set-up phase.
Ross
On 17 June 2013 19:01, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com> wrote:
>> Debo Dutta, cc'ed, from Cisco, will be joining the project and it took a
>> bit of time to get it sorted.
>>
>> I realize this is a late request as the VOTE is already running .. is it ok
>> to add him now? ;-)
>>
>> If not we will bring him after the project starts.
>
> Voting in a new committer is a useful exercise for a fledgling PPMC.
> Think of this as an opportunity. :)
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com> wrote:
> Debo Dutta, cc'ed, from Cisco, will be joining the project and it took a
> bit of time to get it sorted.
>
> I realize this is a late request as the VOTE is already running .. is it ok
> to add him now? ;-)
>
> If not we will bring him after the project starts.
Voting in a new committer is a useful exercise for a fledgling PPMC.
Think of this as an opportunity. :)
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org