Thorsten Scherler wrote:
I am not sure. If we do so then we should extend this to general absence
or time constraints.
I suppose we already to that. If s.o. comes forward telling us that
he/she needs a bit more time to consider and issue, we would allow
that would we not?
Except when on
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Why not simply talk about 2/3 of the votes (those who choose to vote)
within a reasonable time frame?
Hey, good idea. I reckon that would remove the
ambiguity about who has binding votes.
Does that mean all votes are binding (committer as well)?
Probably a
Those proposing GSoc projects should not the below message.
Ross
Original Message
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Projects migrating from ASF Wiki to Google site - how does
it work?
And I can't stress enough: it should be clear to the students that
they are merely
I notice a couple of things on the code.google.com site:-
quote
Too Much of a Good Thing
Apr 19, 2006 - Brian W. Fitzpatrick, Software Engineer
Thanks to everyone for the enormous interest in participating in Summer of
Code 2006. Due to the overwhelming response, we will stop accepting mentor
Gav wrote:
I notice a couple of things on the code.google.com site:-
quote
Too Much of a Good Thing
Apr 19, 2006 - Brian W. Fitzpatrick, Software Engineer
Thanks to everyone for the enormous interest in participating in Summer of
Code 2006. Due to the overwhelming response, we will stop
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
David Crossley escribi??:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Wasn't that what the term active was meant
to say in the first place: Active in terms of coming forward to cast a
vote?
I like your interpretation.
I see activeness different then coming forward and
Ross Gardler escribió:
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
...
With respect to whether we define active or not, I prefer to do less
admin work, not more. So I am in favour of removing the distinction.
We should keep emeritus status. People should be able to opt to be
emeritus or the
Ross Gardler escribió:
Errr there is no hidden agenda in there. David is a fantastic
chair and has my full support in everything he does. I simply meant
that I don't want to make the chairs job any harder than it already is.
Just wanted to make that clear, the above sentence was quite
Missing link:
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html
Sorry.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Antonio Gallardo escribió:
Ross Gardler escribió:
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
...
With respect to whether we define active or not, I prefer to do
less admin work, not
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-853?page=comments#action_12375841 ]
David Crossley commented on FOR-853:
Some other threads:
Target version numbers in Jira
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11321309431
Using Jira and branches for Project
Thorsten Scherler escribió:
El vie, 21-04-2006 a las 16:31 +1000, David Crossley escribió:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
...
The term Active PMC members seems to cause
confusion about who has a binding vote. It was
intended to just clarify the Unanimous and
2/3 Majority situations, so
David Crossley wrote:
You mention scheduled releases. I recall that we
had a big discussion about that topic and whether
it was a good approach. Would someone please refer
to that thread.
Some days one finds it, some days not.
These threads are close, but not quite what
i was looking for.
Gav wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 21 April 2006 5:37 PM
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release Manager - RM
Gav wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
David Crossley escribi??:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Why having a RM? One thing that I learned over the years in os
development is that people feel more responsible for doing a job when
their have officially the function or feel personal responsible for the
-Original Message-
From: David Crossley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2006 12:05 PM
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release Manager - RM
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
David Crossley escribi??:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Why having a RM? One thing
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-767?page=comments#action_12375847 ]
Gavin commented on FOR-767:
---
Looking at deploy.xml the build will fail if deploy is local :-
target name=deploy.local unless=build.failed description=FB: Deploy to a
local location
Link: Need FAQ to explain Cocoon's treatment of xsl:output etc.
---
Key: FOR-864
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-864
Project: Forrest
Type: Task
Components: Documentation and website,
Add missing entries to status.xml to generate the changes list
--
Key: FOR-865
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-865
Project: Forrest
Type: Task
Components: Documentation and website, Core
18 matches
Mail list logo
