On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
...
That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
saying everyone Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
enough.
I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in
on topics more
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:19, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03:
That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
saying everyone Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh
have
enough.
I
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:24, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
...
What I am still waiting to hear on are:
1. The amount
Totally offtopic, but
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:59, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
2. The amount of work that will be required to rework dependencies.
Not a blocker for starting incubation. Keep in mind that the podling may
elect to release via the libreoffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 18:18, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com wrote:
...
I don't see the MySQL Connector module there
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/file/DEV300_m106/mysqlc
Another
I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
This is what I entered into the wiki:
The following mailing lists:
oo-...@incubator.apache.org - for developer discussions
oo-comm...@incubator.apache.org - for
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the
license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
This will help
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:07, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
This is what I entered
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:47, Raphael Bircher r.birc...@gmx.ch wrote:
Hi all
Because this is my first mail, I give a short introduction to myself.
I'm Raphael Bircher from Switzerland. I contribute for OOo since 5 years as
QA and in same other tecnical parts. I was involved by the migration
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 21:03, Andy Brown a...@the-martin-byrd.net wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:07, Alexandro Coloradoj...@openoffice.org
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote:
I just updated the proposal to provide more detail
Michael has posted here already, and will do so when he wants to make
a statement. We don't need the reposting.
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 23:14, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote:
He wrote this yesterday and it describes in different words why the
Apache license is not so pragmatic for
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 17:18, Andy Brown a...@the-martin-byrd.net wrote:
...
1: What will happen to OOo's code and trademark if the podling is not
approved?
2: What will happen to OOo's code and trademark if the project does not
graduate?
I believe the answer is the same for both of these
Right. In short, there is no way to divide the market when you're
talking about ALv2 licensing. Everybody has equal access to very
permissively-licensed software.
It is not a worry. Move along, please.
Cheers,
-g
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 23:51, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
infrastructure, build what can be built, see what the deltas are, etc.
This sort of preservation and assessment seems indispensible in getting going
and seeing what the opportunities are.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 20
On Jun 4, 2011 9:43 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build
OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware
business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But
I wanted to first
On Jun 4, 2011 10:08 AM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05:
In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org.
where is this different from a German entity where donations are
tax-deductible, like
I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
divisive. My numbers are right. No, they're not. See? But those numbers
are too small.
Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
-g
On Jun 3, 2011 1:22 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
Eh? I thought we were already a sausagefest?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:16, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Can we launch the Apache Sausage Project?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/06/2011 16:09, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Fri,
Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
from ASF into their products.
(and typo in the first sentence)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:03, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new
options coming up. So I'd
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:27, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:14, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
...
color me confused: first Simon slams the ASF for not actively
engaging TDF and others (although we, of course, did) but now
his suggestion is to
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
from ASF into their products.
This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
ABSOLUTELY.
Q
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:30, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to
relicense all of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
licenses alone and unlike ASF
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
Look at it this way: you can exclude them
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:22, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote:
Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by
people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already.
Your
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:29, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I plan on updating the proposal on the wiki over the week-end. I'm going
to start a series of threads on various sections of the proposal that I
think are a bit thin and which I could use some help
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:29, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
...
text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's
/such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
openoffice.org resolve to a working and current site without
interruption ...
I don't
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:42, Kevin Lau kevin...@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
First time posting to this list and has been reading it for few days now.
Permit my naive question, can both organizations (TDF and Apache) separate
from their own licensing dependencies and establish an independent entity
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 17:05, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
instead of to the whole shebang.
Bah. Outdated concept. In Apache Subversion, we simply ask the
committer to constrain themselves to certain areas. No need to get
technical about it. The trust metric applies very
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
This is the section on how we
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
...
Jim Jagielski wrote (03-06-11 22:14)
Posts such as:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived
Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
I suggest:
The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
GNU/Linux community as well as on
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:53, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about
this suggested path.
In the end the people who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating
or not...But, here's
my +1 that implies that
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 17:57, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael is repeating some invariants that he and other LO/TDF people
have stated, politely and consistently, since the inception of this
discussion. They are committed to copyleft, they see dependencies with
copyleft,
Discussion should appear here, rather than on the wiki. Leaving quick
questions and thoughts is fine, but for actual discussion: here.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:11, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more. If we get into a
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:23, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
(like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it?
Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone associated with this
proposal
/#lists
I suggest the steering-disc...@documentationfoundation.org or, if you find
that too forward (or if posting is restricted), just
disc...@documentfoundation.org for starters.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
http://mail
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 20:36, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
...
I don't see any smack in it. I read he is giving his opinion in a polite
manner. (Have seen different quotes from him
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:07, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
[Picking a random mail in this thread]
I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
I read
Reliance on Salaried Developers
...
Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
reason for establishing the
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
Simon,
Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:
potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well
as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users
By one definition, complementary
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing
GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic
for Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 01:07, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote:
Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo extensions?
Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, Professional
Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
Our approach is to start with the main
On Jun 2, 2011 4:32 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote:
...
There is currently a bit rearagement movement toward figuring things out in
TDF OOo previously to the OOo annoucement, which happened last month on the
marketing list in OOo.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 09:21, Simon Brouwer simon.o...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Op 2-6-2011 15:04, Greg Stein schreef:
...
If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in
addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the
proposal on the wiki.
I had already been
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 09:43, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Brouwer simon.o...@xs4all.nl wrote on 06/02/2011 09:21:53 AM:
...
Some concern has been expressed that, if the meritocratic system in
Apache is based on code contribution only, those community members are
not able to fully
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07, Simon Brouwer simon.o...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Op 2-6-2011 15:30, Greg Stein schreef:
...
I would suggest adding a Non-code Contributors table into the
proposal and putting your name in there. We don't have precedent for
it, so may as well start with something. We can
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:25, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Everyone else would be just as happy or even happier if the
OO code base, trademarks, etc. where simply donated to TDF.
Please don't speak for me under that everyone else. As long as the
TDF maintains a copyleft
I don't think these statistics have any real relevance to the goal of
evaluating the Proposal and whether it makes sense.
Whether somebody has committed or not, the only question is do they
have an interest in being part of the community?
Whether one group has more committers than the other
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:23, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
...
Is this correct? From what we've witnessed, the Board appears to have
presented this to the incubator on behalf of the proposers. Although this
doesn't change the need for the incubator to vote to accept the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:19, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
...
I guess I've seen too many failures to launch at incubator to support any
more projects coming in which are not in the realistic position to publish
working results as AL works. So without these answers, I
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 15:48, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
...
Well, would you be happy with the second part of the sentence you're
alluding to? To repeat it, LibreOffice and the Document Foundation embody de
facto most of the OpenOffice.org community, and even
environment if you want to performance measure people
that way.
Cheers
Daniel
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:05, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote:
...
Final note on commit log analysis - if that's a criterion how to
define
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:26, Christian Lippka c...@lippka.com wrote:
Hello,
The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion repository as a
required resource.
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main code
and it didn't
work well for a project this
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the
problems you
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 20:22, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
The only concrete thing I've heard so far is the question of whether
subversion can handle the project.
I would be extremely surprised if Subversion could not handle it. I'd
like to know more about the problems that the OO.o devs
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:57, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Luke,
don't know if OpenOffice is an exception, but usually Proposals are done
here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
There is no requirement to use the Wiki. I've attached the text of the .ODT
file in the
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:12, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
don't know if OpenOffice is an exception, but usually Proposals are done
here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
There is no requirement to use the Wiki. I've attached the text of the .ODT
file in the message below.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:21, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks for this exciting proposal. I have a few questions.
There are only two initial committers identified in the proposal. Why only
two for such a large codebase?
Hopefully more will show up. As with other podlings, we're
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:34, Luke Kowalski luke.kowal...@oracle.com wrote:
we were instructed to send the proposal to an email address.
Should we go and hack at the wiki now? No issues, either way.
Thanks for the offer, but we're all good. The proposal came through just fine.
Cheers,
-g
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 14:56, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:24 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list, developers
familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symphony (which is our
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 15:04, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
First, apologies for the new thread, due to my late arrival on this list.
As developer for OpenOffice.org since 2005, and having some knowledge in OOo
source code, I'm interested to contribute to the new OpenOffice.org (as
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 17:20, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 01/06/2011 19:51, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
dshdaniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote on 06/01/2011 02:16:58 PM:
...
And is it generally
at 12:13 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 01/06/2011 22:26, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 17:20, Benson Marguliesbimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardlerrgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 01/06/2011 19:51, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 22:52, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
What am I missing here?
According to the Incubation Policy [1]:
A Sponsor SHALL be either:
* the Board of the Apache Software Foundation;
* a Top Level Project (TLP) within the Apache Software Foundation
(where the TLP
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 15:11, Alan D. Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
It's my understanding that all voting takes place during a 72 hour period.
If that period ends on a weekend then it's customary to wait until Monday to
complete.
I've always considered weekends fair game. In fact,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 20:47, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
...
OK - Have they explicitly OK'd Apache Wave? While Apache Wave would
certainly be unique to Apache, if Google intends to keep using Google Wave
(and Wave as a shorthand) this would get very confusing.
Don't you
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 22:45, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 20:47, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
...
OK - Have they explicitly OK'd Apache Wave? While Apache Wave would
certainly
A full transcription shouldn't be necessary. Just bring a summary of
discussion points back to the list, along with any recommendations.
The list can then sort through it and make decisions.
We have off-list discussions all the time (IM, IRC, in-person). We
don't transcribe those. We just bring
The Board passed this resolution unanimously about two hours ago.
Welcome to TLP status!
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 03:47, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all,
I've added the resolution for the Thrift graduation to the Board's
agenda (for the meeting on Wednesday).
Brian: I've made some
Hey all,
I've added the resolution for the Thrift graduation to the Board's
agenda (for the meeting on Wednesday).
Brian: I've made some edits from your initial resolution to align it
with our standard template. (mostly minor stuff, but added one para
about bylaws/particiption). Where did you
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:20, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
added one para about bylaws/particiption). Where did you copy your original
from
before search/replace? I'd like to fix that source material
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 04:45, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
I think it's really worse, as branches aren't maintained
anymore in the apache svn area,
yes, and anyone ever asked yourself _why_ this happens?
The answer imo is: because its _sooo_ painful to do feature branches in SVN
, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Greg
Stein gst...@gmail.com
wrote:
I do branches all the time in Subversion, and don't
see problems. We
periodically update the branch from trunk, and when
the work is done,
merge the branch back onto trunk. These are
straight-forward
operations, so I don't understand
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 matt...@matthewsacks.comwrote:
...
*Mailing Lists*
kitty-dev
kitty-commits
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
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 Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 20:29, Matthew Sacks matt...@matthewsacks.comwrote:
...
*Mailing Lists*
kitty-dev
kitty-commits
kitty-user
Is there a large user community already? If not, then splitting the
community across dev/user does not make sense. You want to keep the users
and developers on
There are a few Incubator projects that have small communities. I see
no problem with trying it. You could certainly get some better
visibility here, in order to grow your community.
Cheers,
-g
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:05, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
together with
+1
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 16:51, Bryan Duxbury br...@rapleaf.com wrote:
Hi all,
In all the time it took for us to finally release Thrift 0.3, we've
accumulated enough changes for Thrift 0.4!
I propose we accept
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 13:29, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
...
No way would the Board (nor you) allow arbitrary terminology across
projects even if it is parentheticals (whatever that means).
As far as I'm concerned, the participants are Committers. There is no need
to
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:03, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
...
This seems really simple to me. If I move from Korea to the United States I'd
better start learning to speak English if I want to interact with the
population at large. If I just want to stay within my little
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:06, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...
The report is consumed by the svn community, too. They reviewed it and
provided feedback. It uses terms from the svn community.
...
No way would
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 14:56, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
Actually, we don't use ACLs at all. We simply tell them only commit
in your designated area. We haven't ever had a problem with that
approach.
Even better. :-) Relies on human respect.
Even better
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 16:20, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
So it allows them to seamlessly earn wider karma via RTC?
Correct.
So, it promotes CTR by the more experienced hands, and RTC by the less
experienced hands. That does not seem like a bad thing.
Yup.
And to clarify:
Oh, I totally understand what you're saying.
And I respectfully and totally disagree with it on several levels.
We can leave it at that, or you can propose a Resolution to the Board
to enforce terminology whenever different communities want to
communicate here at Apache. Should the Board pass
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 18:02, Sanjiva Weerawarana
sanj...@opensource.lk wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Daniel Shahaf
d...@daniel.shahaf.namewrote:
When I saw this month's board report for Subversion, I was taken aback
that the board is expected to follow the terminology used by
To further expand on this comment:
The Board said that PMCs can make their own rules on how committership
is granted. The Board has no opinion on what the Incubator wants to do
with this topic because that choice is and has always been delegated
to the PMC. This is a consensus opinion of the
+1
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 13:44, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have come to the realization that I'm not
going to convince Noel to see things my way
any time soon, so I'd like to now ask for a
formal majority consensus vote on relaxed rules
for the 3 aforementioned projects.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 14:03, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@oracle.com wrote:
...
Craig L Russell wrote on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:42:18 -0700:
...
I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you use
Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:45, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
And if the Mentors aren't being active, voting, etc., then *that* is what
needs to be addressed.
As I've repeatedly stated before (here and
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 13:57, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
...
On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for.
Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent
email at members@ that there was much more flexibility possible with
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 16:47, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
IIRC, the issue involved the notion of partial committers in subversion
There were objections over the notion of partial committers, not about
the individual.
shrug There are other instances of such
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 21:30, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
...
but the busy-bodies and rules pedants got all in our face.
I read that thread, and as I commented on private@, I thought that it could
have been handled better.
I certainly could have handled
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:00, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
...
Make the podling a TLP comprised of *only* ASF Members, with at least
*three* minimum (preferably more, to deal with idle times). The
podling committers are invited onto the priv...@$podling.apache.org
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:07, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 17/08/2010 03:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very well
in
specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an
experiment,
if the Board buys into
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:29, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
I read that thread, and as I commented on private@, I thought that it could
have been handled better.
I certainly could have handled it better.
I didn't mean by YOU. See my reply on private@ before
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:31, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 10:00:40 PM
Subject: RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)
Greg Stein wrote:
Using
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:53, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's optimized for success while making mentors potentially responsible for
failure (iow a project with crappy mentors will fail no matter how much they
grok apache).
Fair assessment, but those *are* the projects that
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hey Justin,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. My comments below:
See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
honestly don't feel that I deserve a vote on OODT
601 - 700 of 842 matches
Mail list logo
