Ok, cool - thanks for the clarification. I just updated the report again to include both points.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> Paul Fremantle is listed as one of our mentors on the JSecurity >> Proposal. He just didn't vote. > > Ahh, ok. Then it's more accurate to also state that one mentor did not > vote. > >> I didn't mention the multiple build systems because I was unsure if >> that issue came to consensus or not. I stated that I didn't mind if >> both were in place, but then someone raised the issue as to what would >> be the 'formal' one that would be used for releases, and how we would >> maintain both, and I don't think that was ever answered or resolved >> among the team members. I just wasn't clear enough as to what to >> became of that discussion :/ > > The builds are not that complicated. Any one would do. For publication to > the Maven repository I imagine we would use the maven build system. > >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> "3 of the 5 project mentors ..." should read "Three of four project >>> mentors >>> ..." >>> >>> You neglected to mention that we would have both ant and maven build >>> systems >>> in place. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alan >>> >>> On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >>> >>>> I just updated the report - please lemme know if that is OK. >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> >>>> Les >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Emmanuel, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks very much for the feedback - I appreciate it a lot. I'll >>>>> adjust accordingly and re-notify so we can review again. >>>>> >>>>>> 1) About the name, I would suggest we just keep the matter open, as >>>>>> more >>>>>> IPMC members are stepping in. Right now, the vote is closed and the >>>>>> result >>>>>> is not positive, but (1) I don't think it was a good idea to vote such >>>>>> an >>>>>> item [1] and (2) I'm not sure I won't cast my vote in another >>>>>> direction >>>>>> if >>>>>> Juniper is not considered as a risk or if Juniper legals just let us >>>>>> using >>>>>> JSecurity. >>>>> >>>>> Gotcha. I'll revise that section to say it is still open at the >>>>> moment. >>>>> >>>>>> 2) You have to mention that Alex Karasulu has stepped down as a >>>>>> mentor. >>>>> >>>>> Ah yes, thanks. I'll add that as well. >>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise, it's a pretty good report. We have one more day for other >>>>>> comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] The reason I think it was not a good idea to vote is that if we >>>>>> are >>>>>> not >>>>>> trying to solve an issue, but to determinate if there is an IP issue. >>>>>> No >>>>>> matter if you get all the -1 needed to keep JSecurity name, you may >>>>>> still be >>>>>> forced to change the name if The ASF get sued and lose. >>>>> >>>>> Sounds good. It is very helpful to learn when would be a good time to >>>>> vote vs when to let discussion continue. This was a great learning >>>>> experience for me, and is one of the great things the Incubator >>>>> affords us. Thanks :) >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Les >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
