From general-return-50527-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Sun Jul 26 23:14:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 436E4182AE for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:14:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 31858 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jul 2015 23:14:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 31663 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jul 2015 23:14:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 31650 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jul 2015 23:14:08 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:14:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DB918C0473 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:14:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.02 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.02 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F_1jZjR7-QAm for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 5400823130 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so70733704igb.0 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:12:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=NI3XWVG+boN4SYEnv4LVs9aDRM6oxqrE+TvSx4xHRsM=; b=BLoM4bYfDzar3wWmRAQ/QZNDw/u0SVpSHM3LNfI0wGgYV71wTreKixBN94HG5EcIsg ZFZwYVNRo9PGY0+TMS7jFKhUfbCG97JrkJlg8jYxsRzEXA3PiuNLTez4YjTRu4lHizGo RUV00hU6VWAcw4IqcRH3O5ZET2EBaVSX53bNk/kOi14COGduWziO6O5SGRWrsv7HUm7Q BXYJJeeywgMieVI6vY9eox3IbYKAKWG//JA5ukGY+QDoGRMo13IeIktFYr3ImCOkOGSI oZTgnwwjcNj8voP88U6DnlqJ8DgBYXs7ggAp+nn2HDOTru37NW+3oEexDf05s9N3W/9+ ERfA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.158.197 with SMTP id h188mr35735846ioe.99.1437952355834; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: shaposhnik@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.170.10 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:12:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55B54954.8080301@apache.org> References: <92B407C5-7F43-448C-B098-47435AE310F6@boudnik.org> <20150724190058.GM30506@boudnik.org> <55B35279.9000004@apache.org> <55B54954.8080301@apache.org> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:12:35 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: PYSI2bDomlaFGgg2fdpGA9MqpgM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator From: Roman Shaposhnik To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Daniel On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > Apologies in advance for slightly crossing threads here. I'll try to keep you straight in replying to the parts that belong to this thread ;-) > But let's get some facts straight first: > - The champion of the project created a DISCUSS thread prior to a potential > vote. Not a VOTE thread, but a DISCUSS thread. This implies that a subject > is to be reviewed and discussed. > - During this discussion thread, concerns were raised by people outside of > the IPMC. So far so good. > - Members of the IPMC looked into the concerns, as any governing body > should, and while doing so, discovered other issues that were brought to the > attention of the podling. These issues ranged from bad wording, which were > unfortunately favorable to a specific company, to more procedural issues in > maintaining transparency in development. > > - Some of these issues were fixed, some were debated/refuted, and some are > 'pending' later review (chiefly cultural and procedural issues raised) And here's where things get interesting. First of all, let me say that I'm extremely grateful for *actionable* concerns that were expressed on this thread. Things like sill cut-n-paste errors. I really do appreciate IPMC's time spent of reviewing the proposed board resolution. Then, there were concerns that are non-actionable (or at least poorly specified) and then there were concerns that had nothing to do with whether the podling is ready to be an *average* TLP. Because you see, the proposed resolution that started this thread is NOT about whether we all believe Ignite is going to be a poster child and a role model for all the TLPs in the foundation, but rather whether we believe it can self govern according to the broad principles of the "Apache Way". IOW, in my view (a view of somebody who spent quite a few months directly with this and other podlings) some of the concerns are OK to address after the project becomes a TLP. There's always something to be improved. IPMC voting on a podling becoming a TLP doesn't somehow invalidate what you and other have uncovered it just believes that the podling is mature enough to address feedback as a TLP. That's what the vote is really all about. So, long story short: 1. I believe all actionable concerns were take care of. Please correct me if I am wrong here (by listing the actionable concerns that were NOT taken care of). 2. Since I still don't seem to have anybody reply to my direct question: http://s.apache.org/twy I need to repeat this request here again: if anybody still has *actionable* concerns on whether this podling can function as an *average* TLP please reply with succinct bullet items. I'm sorry but the rest of the replies belong to that other separate thread. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org