You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bloodhound.apache.org by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> on 2013/01/23 19:23:50 UTC
Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Hi,
So, our vote has been stalled in the incubator general list for a few
days now. I gave a prod the other day with no obvious result and I have
just made a bit more of a nuisance of myself by following up on a
different thread on a similar theme. Do we have any other means to
encourage more people to review?
The other thing that springs to mind is that currently we go through two
votes which is clearly the normal process. Are we at a point where we
could consider going through a single vote simultaneously on
bloodhound-dev@ and general@? Is this approach allowed?
Cheers,
Gary
On 17/01/13 22:47, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to initiate the vote for releasing Apache Bloodhound 0.4
> (incubating)
> in the incubator following the successful vote of the Bloodhound PPMC.
>
> The vote PPMC vote thread:
> http://markmail.org/message/d2yvz2tx5pj57ru4
>
> Please find the change log for this proposed release below:
>
> * Replaces ticket edit form with a new 'in-place' edit and workflow control
> * Added white-labeling for error messages and basic branding
> * Improvements to the quick ticket creation form including ability to
> specify the select fields and their order
> * Various bug fixes
>
> * Not fixed for this release:
> * No major outstanding issues
>
> The release candidate artifacts consist of source release as a tar.gz
> archive along with the associated MD5 and GPG signature.
> These can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/bloodhound/
>
> The archive is based on the tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bloodhound/tags/0.4-incubating
>
> For this release, the archive differs from the tag in that the Trac
> "contrib" directory has been removed from the archive. The files
> in that directory currently lack license headers. We are working
> with the Trac team to clarify the licenses under which the contrib files
> are released:
> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/273
>
> Please vote:
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Bloodhound 0.4
> [ ] +0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package (please explain)
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours.
>
> Regards,
> - Ryan
>
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
Hi !
On 1/24/13, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> So, in my entirely personal opinion, this leaves two directions: more
> volunteers or less projects. In the extreme, some would read this as a
> reason to close the gates to new projects until we have proven
> capacity.
>
Is there any chance to build tools (beyond those available nowadays
e.g. RAT ...) assisting reviewers in release inspection tasks ? If so
, what would they look like ?
[...]
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
Featured article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
People act when they have a personal motivation to do so. There's no
boss telling people to do things around here.
Therefore, there's no sense in which we have two few people, we just
have too few people interested in engaging with specific projects.
Interest can be both practical (the project is relevant in some way) or
personal (you like the warm fuzzies you get when you do something good).
The incubator is a pretty broad beast, which makes it hard for people to
respond to the overall needs of the incubator as opposed to one or two
specific projects.
We should not berate people for lack of interest - we are each free to
chose how we use our time.
However, projects are also welcome to tell us all how cool they are, and
exactly why it is that the world would be a better place if we helped to
mentor them. Maybe projects have the capacity to give mentors more of
what they want, which could well be just the feeling that they have
contributed something of value to the world.
Upayavira
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Gary Martin wrote:
> On 24 January 2013 18:52, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you model the IPMC as a group of volunteers who have collectively
> > volunteered to mentor and supervise new projects, then the current
> > situation strongly suggests that we have either too many projects or
> > not enough volunteers. Calling people 'lazy' has rarely been observed
> > to get them to do more work on an Apache project.
> >
> > So, in my entirely personal opinion, this leaves two directions: more
> > volunteers or less projects. In the extreme, some would read this as a
> > reason to close the gates to new projects until we have proven
> > capacity.
> >
> > That is, however, not the only possible model. If you model the IPMC
> > as mostly composed of people focussed on individual projects of
> > interest, then the problems look more like individual podlings that
> > have lost the volunteer energy they need for supervision.
> >
> > Much as I value Sebb's style of IP fine-tooth-combing, I also thing
> > that Joe is correct in pointing out that there's much more to podling
> > supervision, or even to release inspection, than that.
> >
> > A podling with a mentor shortage can try various means to acquire more
> > mentors. The first is to just ask for them, after all. I can recall
> > several instances where such a call here yielded results.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> I would like to think that the first model was correct but I expect it is
> not that clear cut. It has to be expected that IPMC members will have a
> range of reasons for being involved. Given what Brane said, I take it
> that
> mentors are quite likely to be more focused on their own projects than
> the
> wider incubator community. I don't think that allows us to label such
> people as lazy and this focus may not even be on purpose. However, it
> would
> seem to be good if mentors considered the act of voting on other projects
> to be worthwhile as it might encourage other mentors to review their own
> project releases. I don't know how to convince people to act on this
> though.
>
> Personally I am naive enough to think that review from IPMC members
> beyond
> a podling's mentors is a good thing on the basis that it provides more
> opportunities for problems to be found and the quality of releases
> raised.
> Surely podlings that can rely on mentor votes will miss out on this to
> some
> extent. I also wonder if it is an opportunity for those projects with low
> community diversity to attract additional interest. (That said, is asking
> for more mentors a valid strategy for helping to improve the PPMC
> diversity?)
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 24 January 2013 18:52, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you model the IPMC as a group of volunteers who have collectively
> volunteered to mentor and supervise new projects, then the current
> situation strongly suggests that we have either too many projects or
> not enough volunteers. Calling people 'lazy' has rarely been observed
> to get them to do more work on an Apache project.
>
> So, in my entirely personal opinion, this leaves two directions: more
> volunteers or less projects. In the extreme, some would read this as a
> reason to close the gates to new projects until we have proven
> capacity.
>
> That is, however, not the only possible model. If you model the IPMC
> as mostly composed of people focussed on individual projects of
> interest, then the problems look more like individual podlings that
> have lost the volunteer energy they need for supervision.
>
> Much as I value Sebb's style of IP fine-tooth-combing, I also thing
> that Joe is correct in pointing out that there's much more to podling
> supervision, or even to release inspection, than that.
>
> A podling with a mentor shortage can try various means to acquire more
> mentors. The first is to just ask for them, after all. I can recall
> several instances where such a call here yielded results.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
I would like to think that the first model was correct but I expect it is
not that clear cut. It has to be expected that IPMC members will have a
range of reasons for being involved. Given what Brane said, I take it that
mentors are quite likely to be more focused on their own projects than the
wider incubator community. I don't think that allows us to label such
people as lazy and this focus may not even be on purpose. However, it would
seem to be good if mentors considered the act of voting on other projects
to be worthwhile as it might encourage other mentors to review their own
project releases. I don't know how to convince people to act on this though.
Personally I am naive enough to think that review from IPMC members beyond
a podling's mentors is a good thing on the basis that it provides more
opportunities for problems to be found and the quality of releases raised.
Surely podlings that can rely on mentor votes will miss out on this to some
extent. I also wonder if it is an opportunity for those projects with low
community diversity to attract additional interest. (That said, is asking
for more mentors a valid strategy for helping to improve the PPMC
diversity?)
Cheers,
Gary
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
If you model the IPMC as a group of volunteers who have collectively
volunteered to mentor and supervise new projects, then the current
situation strongly suggests that we have either too many projects or
not enough volunteers. Calling people 'lazy' has rarely been observed
to get them to do more work on an Apache project.
So, in my entirely personal opinion, this leaves two directions: more
volunteers or less projects. In the extreme, some would read this as a
reason to close the gates to new projects until we have proven
capacity.
That is, however, not the only possible model. If you model the IPMC
as mostly composed of people focussed on individual projects of
interest, then the problems look more like individual podlings that
have lost the volunteer energy they need for supervision.
Much as I value Sebb's style of IP fine-tooth-combing, I also thing
that Joe is correct in pointing out that there's much more to podling
supervision, or even to release inspection, than that.
A podling with a mentor shortage can try various means to acquire more
mentors. The first is to just ask for them, after all. I can recall
several instances where such a call here yielded results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
For argument's sake, let's say "two". That is the specified/recommended
minimum. Thus, the IPMC must contribute an additional +1. Thus, it can
totally block podling releases thru its laziness and inactivity.
Sounds broken.
-g
On Jan 23, 2013 5:22 PM, "Dave Fisher" <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> How many active mentors do you have? Did they all VOTE?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > So, our vote has been stalled in the incubator general list for a few
> days now. I gave a prod the other day with no obvious result and I have
> just made a bit more of a nuisance of myself by following up on a different
> thread on a similar theme. Do we have any other means to encourage more
> people to review?
> >
> > The other thing that springs to mind is that currently we go through two
> votes which is clearly the normal process. Are we at a point where we could
> consider going through a single vote simultaneously on bloodhound-dev@and general@?
> Is this approach allowed?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gary
> >
> >
> > On 17/01/13 22:47, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I would like to initiate the vote for releasing Apache Bloodhound 0.4
> >> (incubating)
> >> in the incubator following the successful vote of the Bloodhound PPMC.
> >>
> >> The vote PPMC vote thread:
> >> http://markmail.org/message/d2yvz2tx5pj57ru4
> >>
> >> Please find the change log for this proposed release below:
> >>
> >> * Replaces ticket edit form with a new 'in-place' edit and workflow
> control
> >> * Added white-labeling for error messages and basic branding
> >> * Improvements to the quick ticket creation form including ability to
> >> specify the select fields and their order
> >> * Various bug fixes
> >>
> >> * Not fixed for this release:
> >> * No major outstanding issues
> >>
> >> The release candidate artifacts consist of source release as a tar.gz
> >> archive along with the associated MD5 and GPG signature.
> >> These can be found at:
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/bloodhound/
> >>
> >> The archive is based on the tag:
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bloodhound/tags/0.4-incubating
> >>
> >> For this release, the archive differs from the tag in that the Trac
> >> "contrib" directory has been removed from the archive. The files
> >> in that directory currently lack license headers. We are working
> >> with the Trac team to clarify the licenses under which the contrib files
> >> are released:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/273
> >>
> >> Please vote:
> >> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Bloodhound 0.4
> >> [ ] +0 Don't care
> >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package (please explain)
> >>
> >> The vote is open for 72 hours.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> - Ryan
> >
>
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
For argument's sake, let's say "two". That is the specified/recommended
minimum. Thus, the IPMC must contribute an additional +1. Thus, it can
totally block podling releases thru its laziness and inactivity.
Sounds broken.
-g
On Jan 23, 2013 5:22 PM, "Dave Fisher" <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> How many active mentors do you have? Did they all VOTE?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > So, our vote has been stalled in the incubator general list for a few
> days now. I gave a prod the other day with no obvious result and I have
> just made a bit more of a nuisance of myself by following up on a different
> thread on a similar theme. Do we have any other means to encourage more
> people to review?
> >
> > The other thing that springs to mind is that currently we go through two
> votes which is clearly the normal process. Are we at a point where we could
> consider going through a single vote simultaneously on bloodhound-dev@and general@?
> Is this approach allowed?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gary
> >
> >
> > On 17/01/13 22:47, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I would like to initiate the vote for releasing Apache Bloodhound 0.4
> >> (incubating)
> >> in the incubator following the successful vote of the Bloodhound PPMC.
> >>
> >> The vote PPMC vote thread:
> >> http://markmail.org/message/d2yvz2tx5pj57ru4
> >>
> >> Please find the change log for this proposed release below:
> >>
> >> * Replaces ticket edit form with a new 'in-place' edit and workflow
> control
> >> * Added white-labeling for error messages and basic branding
> >> * Improvements to the quick ticket creation form including ability to
> >> specify the select fields and their order
> >> * Various bug fixes
> >>
> >> * Not fixed for this release:
> >> * No major outstanding issues
> >>
> >> The release candidate artifacts consist of source release as a tar.gz
> >> archive along with the associated MD5 and GPG signature.
> >> These can be found at:
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/bloodhound/
> >>
> >> The archive is based on the tag:
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bloodhound/tags/0.4-incubating
> >>
> >> For this release, the archive differs from the tag in that the Trac
> >> "contrib" directory has been removed from the archive. The files
> >> in that directory currently lack license headers. We are working
> >> with the Trac team to clarify the licenses under which the contrib files
> >> are released:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/273
> >>
> >> Please vote:
> >> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Bloodhound 0.4
> >> [ ] +0 Don't care
> >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package (please explain)
> >>
> >> The vote is open for 72 hours.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> - Ryan
> >
>
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
How many active mentors do you have? Did they all VOTE?
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So, our vote has been stalled in the incubator general list for a few days now. I gave a prod the other day with no obvious result and I have just made a bit more of a nuisance of myself by following up on a different thread on a similar theme. Do we have any other means to encourage more people to review?
>
> The other thing that springs to mind is that currently we go through two votes which is clearly the normal process. Are we at a point where we could consider going through a single vote simultaneously on bloodhound-dev@ and general@? Is this approach allowed?
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
>
>
> On 17/01/13 22:47, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I would like to initiate the vote for releasing Apache Bloodhound 0.4
>> (incubating)
>> in the incubator following the successful vote of the Bloodhound PPMC.
>>
>> The vote PPMC vote thread:
>> http://markmail.org/message/d2yvz2tx5pj57ru4
>>
>> Please find the change log for this proposed release below:
>>
>> * Replaces ticket edit form with a new 'in-place' edit and workflow control
>> * Added white-labeling for error messages and basic branding
>> * Improvements to the quick ticket creation form including ability to
>> specify the select fields and their order
>> * Various bug fixes
>>
>> * Not fixed for this release:
>> * No major outstanding issues
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts consist of source release as a tar.gz
>> archive along with the associated MD5 and GPG signature.
>> These can be found at:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/bloodhound/
>>
>> The archive is based on the tag:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bloodhound/tags/0.4-incubating
>>
>> For this release, the archive differs from the tag in that the Trac
>> "contrib" directory has been removed from the archive. The files
>> in that directory currently lack license headers. We are working
>> with the Trac team to clarify the licenses under which the contrib files
>> are released:
>> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/273
>>
>> Please vote:
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Bloodhound 0.4
>> [ ] +0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package (please explain)
>>
>> The vote is open for 72 hours.
>>
>> Regards,
>> - Ryan
>
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 23.01.2013 23:24, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> As soon as he becomes an ASF member, he can also become an IPMC member.
> This is not strictly true. I was an IPMC member first. Please bring that discussion to private.
You're correct, I forgot about that alternative.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 23, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 23.01.2013 20:45, Joe Dreimann wrote:
>> I don't know if it's allowed to combine both votes, but I'm in favour of it if it is.
>
> It's not. IPMC procedures dictate that the project community shall do
> everything necessary to produce an Apache release, then the IPMC will
> review those results by means of a second release vote. The idea being
> that as long as the project is a podling, it's learning the ropes.
>
> Note that you wouldn't really gain much by going straight to the IPMC,
> since that vote thread is initialized with existing mentor votes.
>
>> In relation to the currently stalled voting, I'd like to propose Gary as a future IPMC member. Is there a process for this?
>
> As soon as he becomes an ASF member, he can also become an IPMC member.
This is not strictly true. I was an IPMC member first. Please bring that discussion to private.
Regards,
Dave
>
>> Also or alternatively, is there a process for recruiting further mentors? Or is it "simply" a case of picking out potential mentors and asking them?
>
> It's more or less a matter of asking on the IPMC. Really, though, this
> project has enough active mentors, and relying on purely mentor votes
> sounds like "cheating".
>
>
> The proper way to avoid blocking on release votes is to graduate. :)
> Which I believe this community is ready for. Except for the community
> diversity issue, which you're all actively working on.
>
> I know it's frustrating, but even though I'm typically prepared to cut
> through a lot of red tape, I do feel that community diversity is
> important. And we all know exactly how diverse this particular community is.
>
> -- Brane
>
> --
> Branko Čibej
> Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
>
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Joachim Dreimann <jo...@wandisco.com>.
I also fully subscribe to the fact that we need to improve community
diversity, that part is not red tape.
- Joe
On 23 Jan 2013, at 22:19, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 23 January 2013 20:14, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23.01.2013 20:45, Joe Dreimann wrote:
>>> I don't know if it's allowed to combine both votes, but I'm in favour of
>> it if it is.
>>
>> It's not. IPMC procedures dictate that the project community shall do
>> everything necessary to produce an Apache release, then the IPMC will
>> review those results by means of a second release vote. The idea being
>> that as long as the project is a podling, it's learning the ropes.
>
> I was pretty sure that was the case but I happened to check here:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-incubator-release-vote
> and noted that the wording "The conventional process is for the podling to
> follow the usual Apache process" is quite suggestive that there is the
> potential for something other than a conventional process. What confuses me
> is that I felt that I knew it was definitely a two stage vote - did I get
> that from a different source? Anyway, it seemed worth checking.
>
>
>>
>> Note that you wouldn't really gain much by going straight to the IPMC,
>> since that vote thread is initialized with existing mentor votes.
>
> Well, I could try to argue advantages of only having the possibility of
> just 72 hours of voting but I am not attempting to get a change in the
> rules of the incubator so it is all moot.
>
>
>>> In relation to the currently stalled voting, I'd like to propose Gary as
>> a future IPMC member. Is there a process for this?
>>
>> As soon as he becomes an ASF member, he can also become an IPMC member.
>
> Sounds good for some far off future when Bloodhound is out of incubation.
> If it were possible before then it would just seem like an abuse of the
> position.
>
>
>
>>> Also or alternatively, is there a process for recruiting further
>> mentors? Or is it "simply" a case of picking out potential mentors and
>> asking them?
>>
>> It's more or less a matter of asking on the IPMC. Really, though, this
>> project has enough active mentors, and relying on purely mentor votes
>> sounds like "cheating".
>
> We already have enough IPMC members in principle but everyone has limited
> time and I do not feel that it is right to insist on their vote. In
> addition, while I want votes to be completed quickly I would also prefer
> new people examining our release each time as this increases the chance of
> spotting issues that we have missed.
>
>
>> The proper way to avoid blocking on release votes is to graduate. :)
>> Which I believe this community is ready for. Except for the community
>> diversity issue, which you're all actively working on.
>>
>> I know it's frustrating, but even though I'm typically prepared to cut
>> through a lot of red tape, I do feel that community diversity is
>> important. And we all know exactly how diverse this particular community
>> is.
> I have no objection at all to that point of view.
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 23 January 2013 20:14, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 23.01.2013 20:45, Joe Dreimann wrote:
> > I don't know if it's allowed to combine both votes, but I'm in favour of
> it if it is.
>
> It's not. IPMC procedures dictate that the project community shall do
> everything necessary to produce an Apache release, then the IPMC will
> review those results by means of a second release vote. The idea being
> that as long as the project is a podling, it's learning the ropes.
>
I was pretty sure that was the case but I happened to check here:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-incubator-release-vote
and noted that the wording "The conventional process is for the podling to
follow the usual Apache process" is quite suggestive that there is the
potential for something other than a conventional process. What confuses me
is that I felt that I knew it was definitely a two stage vote - did I get
that from a different source? Anyway, it seemed worth checking.
>
> Note that you wouldn't really gain much by going straight to the IPMC,
> since that vote thread is initialized with existing mentor votes.
>
Well, I could try to argue advantages of only having the possibility of
just 72 hours of voting but I am not attempting to get a change in the
rules of the incubator so it is all moot.
> > In relation to the currently stalled voting, I'd like to propose Gary as
> a future IPMC member. Is there a process for this?
>
> As soon as he becomes an ASF member, he can also become an IPMC member.
>
Sounds good for some far off future when Bloodhound is out of incubation.
If it were possible before then it would just seem like an abuse of the
position.
> > Also or alternatively, is there a process for recruiting further
> mentors? Or is it "simply" a case of picking out potential mentors and
> asking them?
>
> It's more or less a matter of asking on the IPMC. Really, though, this
> project has enough active mentors, and relying on purely mentor votes
> sounds like "cheating".
>
We already have enough IPMC members in principle but everyone has limited
time and I do not feel that it is right to insist on their vote. In
addition, while I want votes to be completed quickly I would also prefer
new people examining our release each time as this increases the chance of
spotting issues that we have missed.
> The proper way to avoid blocking on release votes is to graduate. :)
> Which I believe this community is ready for. Except for the community
> diversity issue, which you're all actively working on.
>
> I know it's frustrating, but even though I'm typically prepared to cut
> through a lot of red tape, I do feel that community diversity is
> important. And we all know exactly how diverse this particular community
> is.
>
>
I have no objection at all to that point of view.
Cheers,
Gary
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 23.01.2013 20:45, Joe Dreimann wrote:
> I don't know if it's allowed to combine both votes, but I'm in favour of it if it is.
It's not. IPMC procedures dictate that the project community shall do
everything necessary to produce an Apache release, then the IPMC will
review those results by means of a second release vote. The idea being
that as long as the project is a podling, it's learning the ropes.
Note that you wouldn't really gain much by going straight to the IPMC,
since that vote thread is initialized with existing mentor votes.
> In relation to the currently stalled voting, I'd like to propose Gary as a future IPMC member. Is there a process for this?
As soon as he becomes an ASF member, he can also become an IPMC member.
> Also or alternatively, is there a process for recruiting further mentors? Or is it "simply" a case of picking out potential mentors and asking them?
It's more or less a matter of asking on the IPMC. Really, though, this
project has enough active mentors, and relying on purely mentor votes
sounds like "cheating".
The proper way to avoid blocking on release votes is to graduate. :)
Which I believe this community is ready for. Except for the community
diversity issue, which you're all actively working on.
I know it's frustrating, but even though I'm typically prepared to cut
through a lot of red tape, I do feel that community diversity is
important. And we all know exactly how diverse this particular community is.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.4 (incubating)
Posted by Joe Dreimann <jo...@wandisco.com>.
I don't know if it's allowed to combine both votes, but I'm in favour of it if it is.
In relation to the currently stalled voting, I'd like to propose Gary as a future IPMC member. Is there a process for this?
Also or alternatively, is there a process for recruiting further mentors? Or is it "simply" a case of picking out potential mentors and asking them?
Cheers,
Joe
________________________
@jdreimann - Twitter
Sent from my phone
On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:23, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So, our vote has been stalled in the incubator general list for a few days now. I gave a prod the other day with no obvious result and I have just made a bit more of a nuisance of myself by following up on a different thread on a similar theme. Do we have any other means to encourage more people to review?
>
> The other thing that springs to mind is that currently we go through two votes which is clearly the normal process. Are we at a point where we could consider going through a single vote simultaneously on bloodhound-dev@ and general@? Is this approach allowed?
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
>
>
> On 17/01/13 22:47, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I would like to initiate the vote for releasing Apache Bloodhound 0.4
>> (incubating)
>> in the incubator following the successful vote of the Bloodhound PPMC.
>>
>> The vote PPMC vote thread:
>> http://markmail.org/message/d2yvz2tx5pj57ru4
>>
>> Please find the change log for this proposed release below:
>>
>> * Replaces ticket edit form with a new 'in-place' edit and workflow control
>> * Added white-labeling for error messages and basic branding
>> * Improvements to the quick ticket creation form including ability to
>> specify the select fields and their order
>> * Various bug fixes
>>
>> * Not fixed for this release:
>> * No major outstanding issues
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts consist of source release as a tar.gz
>> archive along with the associated MD5 and GPG signature.
>> These can be found at:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/bloodhound/
>>
>> The archive is based on the tag:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bloodhound/tags/0.4-incubating
>>
>> For this release, the archive differs from the tag in that the Trac
>> "contrib" directory has been removed from the archive. The files
>> in that directory currently lack license headers. We are working
>> with the Trac team to clarify the licenses under which the contrib files
>> are released:
>> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/273
>>
>> Please vote:
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Bloodhound 0.4
>> [ ] +0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package (please explain)
>>
>> The vote is open for 72 hours.
>>
>> Regards,
>> - Ryan
>