+1 (non-binding)
Small point: if a Mentor must be a Member, I can't be one, because I'm not.
p
On 08/09/2010 16:00, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
+1 (Notbinding)
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 20:29, Matthew Sacks
On 08/09/2010 13:44, ant elder wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
After much debate both here and on the connectors mailing list, the LCF
community has voted (see
Just to clarify: I'm assuming you're saying +1 to the proposal,
rather than to my comment. Correct?
And to clarify for myself: I have no opinion on the proposal itself. I
timed out after Java and the next few buzzwords. Thankfully, this
proposal didn't say framework or I may have timed out after
On 09/09/2010 07:15, Greg Stein wrote:
Just to clarify: I'm assuming you're saying +1 to the proposal,
rather than to my comment. Correct?
+1 indeed, to the proposal
+1 actually, to the mailing list comment, too.
The Incubator PMC might consider that establishing sufficient interest
which
I'm with James on this one. Many good points have been made on this,
but we do have bigger things to worry about.
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 08:06 -0400, James Carman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:39 AM, dan haywood
d...@haywood-associates.co.uk wrote:
For the moment at least the dev
On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 09:31 +1000, Gav... wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 10:18 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache
Connectors
I think the name is too generic and don't care for it - but as long as
its not offensive or in use elsewhere then this should be up to the
project to decide and the IPMC should stay out.
[X] +1 Change the Lucene Connector Framework to the Apache Connector Framework
Niall
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at
I'm -1 (don't know if it's binding or not. I requested to join the
PMC, but didn't hear anything back). I think the name is too general.
Why not just choose some animal name or something like everyone else
is doing?
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
I'm watching the renaming vote thread and I find it odd that folks
are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and
the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything
other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC
should only be
Perhaps some clarification is in order, explaining where we are and how we
got here, and the procedures the podling followed to come up with the
current proposal. I especially want to address the concern that we've been
ignoring the advice of the incubator.
Here is a short history, for those
name=trademark
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm watching the renaming vote thread and I find it odd that folks
are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and
the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:32 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
name=trademark
Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to
Presumably, the PMC's job is to be the eyes and ears of the Board, so if
project is doing something wrong, the PMC should let it know. In this case,
the project specifically is asking for guidance from the PMC as to whether the
name change is acceptable to the PMC and thus to the ASF, assuming
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to
think through
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
Grant proposed that we simply go from LCF to ACF at that time, and
posted accordingly to this group. He received several positive responses,
and only one that raised any concerns. After a week's delay, we presumed
that
There may be trademark issues with Manifold, so although it enjoys support
in the community, it may be unacceptable for that reason. Also, it was not
the actual winner of the vote, and so we do need to go through the proper
process, seems to me. If ACF is rejected, then we'll have to properly
+1 on the mailing lists issue.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Pid p...@pidster.com wrote:
On 09/09/2010 07:15, Greg Stein wrote:
Just to clarify: I'm assuming you're saying +1 to the proposal,
rather than to my comment. Correct?
+1 indeed, to the proposal
+1 actually, to the mailing list
On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:57 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
Grant proposed that we simply go from LCF to ACF at that time, and
posted accordingly to this group. He received several positive responses,
and only one that raised any
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then
fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside
the podling to -1 that
Not only did we ask, we've asked more than once.
We're going that extra mile to call a vote to resolve this issue
specifically because there seems to be a wide range of opinion as to whether
the name is acceptable to the incubator, and by implication, the board.
It's quite clear that there's also
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then
fine. Sounds
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 14:11, Kalle Korhonen kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
wrote:
I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 was a veto. If the
IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like this. If you're
only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then sure...
definitely no problems
The formation of your community is a BIG DEAL. Not something to
casually sweep under the rug.
Partitioning the community between users and devs makes it very
difficult to establish a large, viable, sustainable community.
If projects arrive at the Incubator with an already-built user
community,
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...It is obviously a call for each podling to make, so I'm simply
recommending that all podlings consider the impact of dividing your
community when you ask for separate dev/user lists. I believe it is
rarely appropriate
I
The dicussion of how proposals should be addressed might be a better
issue for the Wiki page on proposals.
It is off topic of this original proposal, and I vote that it be moved
to a separate thread.
We have agreed and noted to use a single mailing list for the purposes
of this proposal.
On
James Carman wrote on Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 15:33:53 -0400:
If users are interested in the development goings-on,
then they can subscribe to the dev list.
A standard argument against this:
Having it in the same list makes it easier to pull users in to become
developers.
Some folks, like us
On 9/9/10 9:33 PM, James Carman wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote:
The formation of your community is a BIG DEAL. Not something to
casually sweep under the rug.
Partitioning the community between users and devs makes it very
difficult to establish a
btw, regarding consistency: some projects have a us...@a.o (plural) list,
others have u...@a.o (singular). I most certainly take the wrong one whenever I
write a mail to some u list ;)
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 9/9/10, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
From: James Carman
Knowing Roy he'd probably want to see them
all renamed u...@.
- Original Message
From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Thu, September 9, 2010 6:31:05 PM
Subject: Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL]
Kitty
to
Author: billgraham
Date: Thu Sep 9 21:33:13 2010
New Revision: 995581
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995581view=rev
Log:
fixing links to chukwa site
Modified:
incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/projects/chukwa.html
Modified:
Ahh right, of course. Thanks for the heads up.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:53 PM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
Author: billgraham
Date: Thu Sep 9 21:33:13 2010
New Revision: 995581
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995581view=rev
Log:
fixing links to chukwa site
Modified:
32 matches
Mail list logo
