On Aug 19, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Aug 19, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> >>> I'm unable to vote either way until: >>> >>> A) a PMC chair has been identified by the community >>> >>> B) a resolution for the TLP is prepared which will define what we are >>> voting on >>> >>> Note, I'm generally in favour of the proposal but I do want to be sure that >>> the community has the resources it needs to continue to build and maintain >>> a healthy,vibrant and inclusive community. There are some candidates for >>> PMC chair that I can think of, but I don't know if they want the role. >>> >>> In a healthy community the PMC role is just taking responsibility for board >>> reports (not necessarily writing them, just making sure they get written) >>> and any community actions requested by the board. It shouldn't be a time >>> consuming role, but it can become so on occasion. >>> >>> This query should not prevent the community expressing their opinion in the >>> vote. I just wanted to let you know why I will be abstaining. You only need >>> my vote when it comes to the actual graduation vote. >> >> I understand. >> >> BTW - There are some Mentor related status items on [1] that need action. >> Would you be able to take care of those items? >> > > So the items I see as not marked as done are: > > 1. Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist > and check www.nameprotect.com to be sure that the name is not already > trademarked for an existing software product. > > 2. Subscribe all Mentors on the pmc and general lists. > > 3. Give all Mentors access to the incubator SVN repository. (to be > done by the Incubator PMC chair or an Incubator PMC Member wih karma > for the authorizations file) > > 4. Tell Mentors to track progress in the file > 'incubator/projects/{project.name}.html' > > For 1, we came with a transferred trademark, from Oracle. I think > that can be considered an alternative way of demonstrating uniqueness, > since that was required in the first instance to acquire the > registered trademark, So maybe we just put down the date of the > transfer? > > For 2, that is obviously done. I assume it was done within hours of > the podling being created. > > Ditto for 3. > > For 4, this sounds incorrect. It has been podling members, not > mentors, who have been maintaining the status file. But for > completeness can we assume that the mentors were implicitly told to do > this when the IPMC approved the podling initially?
I agree with your interpretation on all points. > > So is there anything on that list that you think needs Mentor > attention? Anything else in the status file? Not that I know of. Regards, Dave > > -Rob > >> Thanks & Regards, >> Dave >> >> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html >> >>> >>> Ross >>> On Aug 19, 2012 4:53 PM, "Rob Weir" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Please vote in the main [VOTE] thread, and have discussion in this thread. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> -Rob >>>> >>
