Re: Using Solr/Lucene to provide our own site search?

2017-03-29 Thread Ted Dunning 
Sounds like a roadmap more than a focus, but otherwise good.

On Mar 29, 2017 6:46 AM, "Shane Curcuru"  wrote:

> Wow, so there are folks interested!  Great discussion, and good point:
> projects that span projects or are working on broader community aspects
> need clear definitions to keep disparate volunteers focused.
>
> There are two things *I* would be interested in helping with:
>
>
> 1- (Small concept) Super easy to use and maintain search widget and
> portal for apache.org and community.a.o sites, focused on helping
> newcomers find their way to the right "how do I do X" pages.  Value:
> Make ComDev efforts more useful by ensuring new users - who might not
> know what terminology we use, or where our docs are traditionally stored
> - to find the how to information they need.
>
> In terms of structure: it feels like there might be three general kinds
> of people searching on a.o/c.a.o:
>
> - General information about Apache (what it is, structure, donate, etc.)
> - How To information, like where SVN is, how to change websites, where
> different email lists are, etc.
> - Project information: either about a specific project, or more likely
> "Which projects might I want to contribute to".
>
>
> 2- (Big concept) Creating a simple, drop-in, Apache branded search
> widget that we encourage projects to consider adopting on their
> homepages.  Value: better search for individual project's users; plus
> showcasing some cross-project links and interest.
>
> Obviously, there are several existing setups that provide a lot of this
> functionality already (more than I realized).  But it would be really
> nice to have a solution that is:
>
> -- Super easy to drop into any existing site's design.
> Maven/Forrest/ghpages style sites would be the obvious targets.  (Do we
> have stats as to how many projects use each site builder tool?)
>
> -- Branded (primarily) as an Apache Lucene/Solr powered search tool.
> The Lucidworks site looks pretty powerful, and does cross-project stuff,
> but for me, the interest is providing something that is primarily
> powered by Apache tools (even if it uses someone's hosting or extra
> code, as a secondary thing).
>
> The search results/refinement pages in particular should match Apache
> site designs in general.  The Google custom search results are kinda
> ugly, now that I look at them.  The Lucidworks site is nice, but if
> we're going to feature this prominently, it would be nice to use Apache
> site design, with a text note "powered by LucidWorks Fusion, more
> details here" or the like.
>
> -- Maintenance documented.  ComDev already has a lot of code this PMC
> owns, and since we're not focused on code daily, we need to ensure
> whatever maintenance is easy to do.
>
>
> Is that a good focus for now?
>
> - Shane
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
>   https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>
>

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Phil Steitz 
On 3/29/17 6:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
>> ...it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it really
>> "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers?...
> I like the "vetoes are only for code commits" rule that
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html defines, at least
> implicitly.
>
> In the case of committer votes, I think a PMC must take objections
> into account even if they are not considered formal vetoes.

+1
I see this as similar to releases.  Technically, releases can move
forward in the presence of -1's; but it rarely happens.  Much better
is to get to consensus on whatever is behind the -1 and agree to
hold on the action or take steps to address the -1.

Phil
>
> But that's a community management / health thing, not a formal mechanism IMO.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>
> .
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

RE: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers

2017-03-29 Thread Ross Gardler 
No.

-Original Message-
From: Luciano Resende [mailto:luckbr1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:54 AM
To: Apache ComDev 
Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers

Ross,

Any chance that MS would actually provide a long term subscription for Apache 
Committers to avoid the issues we are currently seeing with renew process ?

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Ross Gardler  wrote:

> It's OK, go ahead and submit. I'll dedupe if necessary (I'm the first 
> point of failure in the hand over to MS).
>
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Leif Hedstrom [mailto:zw...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 8:27 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> >
> > If it were a year ago yes, please resubmit. I updated the forma 
> > round 6
> months ago when I picked this up (though as I freely acknowledge 
> "picking it up" is over stating things since so many have not got a renewal 
> yet).
>
> Hmmm, I’m not sure when I submitted mine, is there a way we can see 
> the list of pending requests? I’d hate to have everyone bother you 
> personally to find out, or resubmit duplicates.
>
> Cheers,
>
> — leif
>
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsber...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 7:00 AM
> > To: dev@community.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers
> >
> > Hi Ross, I sent in my renewal likely a year ago and pinged you after 
> > I
> did not hear back in a month or so.  Should I re-submit?
> >
> > Peter Hunsberger
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed this is messed up on the MS side (I work for MS I can say 
> >> that
> >> ;-)
> >>
> >> I'm really sorry that the majority of people are having problems 
> >> with this offer. I can reassure you that if you filled in the form 
> >> I have your details and will follow through ASAP. Unfortunately 
> >> that is truly not quickly enough, but this is a complex process 
> >> that costs the company a great deal of money. Patience please.
> >>
> >> Ross
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhy...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:55 AM
> >> To: dev@community.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers
> >>
> >> Here's some info:
> >> https://lists.gt.net/lucene/java-dev/341248?page=last
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Bryan Rosander 
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I had a similar experience a few months ago.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Bryan
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Lars Francke 
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  I had the same experience as Pavel. Tried last year using that 
>  form but
> >>> got
>  no reply.
> 
>  On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Piergiorgio Lucidi < 
>  piergior...@apache.org>
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I need to renew my MSDN subscription.
> > Does anybody knows something about this?
> >
> > I have just retried to submit my renewal request using that form.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > PJ
> >
> >
> > 2017-03-22 7:59 GMT+01:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> There is
> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
> > licenses/msdn.txt
> >>
> >> But I tried it a couple of times last year and got no reply.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Isuru Haththotuwa <
>  isurulu...@gmail.com
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Is $subject still offered? Mine has expired, and could not 
> >>> find a
> >>> way
> > to
> >>> renew it. Found [1] in mail archives, but leads to a 404.
> >>>
> >>> [1].
> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
> >>> licenses/msdn-subscription.html
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Piergiorgio Lucidi
> > Technology Evangelist @ Sourcesense Author and Technical 
> > Reviewer @ Packt Publishing Mentor / PMC Member / Committer @ 
> > Apache Software Foundation Wiki Gardener / Forum Moderator / 
> > Certified Instructor, Engineer and Administrator @ Alfresco Top 
> > Community Contributor @ Crafter Project Leader / Committer @ 
> > JBoss http://www.open4dev.com
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> > -

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Joseph Schaefer 
Let me clarify that.  Each nomination receives comments from other members 
about their history with the nominee.  Not all comments are positive, but those 
that are are effectively counted as seconds for the nominee.

The actual vote is by simple majority however.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Pierre Smits  wrote:
> 
> I wonder, when voting in new ASF Members is there the discussion on each
> nominee to achieve consensus...
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> ORRTIZ.COM 
> OFBiz based solutions & services
> 
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> 
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 05:13
>>> To: dev@community.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
>>> 
>> [ ... ]
>>> 
>>> Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1
>>> with no vetoes". CouchDB's majority-rule for committers is unusual. I
>>> hope that CouchDB's bylaws are not adopted as a template for others,
>>> as I believe that the rule on committer voting is counter to an
>>> important institutional tradition in Apache governance.
>>> 
>> [ ... ]
>> [orcmid]
>> 
>> I think there are common misunderstandings about where vetoes are allowed
>> (as opposed to No votes that need to be addressed as part of
>> consensus-seeking and community cultivation).
>> 
>> My understanding is that votes on *procedural*matters* have no vetoes by
>> default, but the effort to achieve consensus is always important in the
>> presence of Nays.  Treating nays as vetoes is often inappropriate because
>> it admits a form of bull-dozing in the negative.  Note that lazy consensus
>> is a form of unanimous consent, with no explicit requirement for 3 +1s;
>> here an objection is not a veto since lazy consensus is specifically an
>> if-no-objection proposal and objections are invited.
>> 
>> The only firm veto seems to be on commits.  And, of course, the 3 +1s
>> majority is *specifically* for eligible votes on release candidates (and
>> which cannot be vetoed).
>> 
>> The veto business (and the 3 +1s) seem to leak all over PMC practice
>> without ever being made an explicit policy as some sort of urban legend.
>> The fact that a podling mentor can veto actions (and also claim the myths
>> as policy) is probably confusing in that regard (if that is still the IPMC
>> practice).
>> 
>> - Dennis
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>> 
>> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Joseph Schaefer 
Yes of course!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Pierre Smits  wrote:
> 
> I wonder, when voting in new ASF Members is there the discussion on each
> nominee to achieve consensus...
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> ORRTIZ.COM 
> OFBiz based solutions & services
> 
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> 
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 05:13
>>> To: dev@community.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
>>> 
>> [ ... ]
>>> 
>>> Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1
>>> with no vetoes". CouchDB's majority-rule for committers is unusual. I
>>> hope that CouchDB's bylaws are not adopted as a template for others,
>>> as I believe that the rule on committer voting is counter to an
>>> important institutional tradition in Apache governance.
>>> 
>> [ ... ]
>> [orcmid]
>> 
>> I think there are common misunderstandings about where vetoes are allowed
>> (as opposed to No votes that need to be addressed as part of
>> consensus-seeking and community cultivation).
>> 
>> My understanding is that votes on *procedural*matters* have no vetoes by
>> default, but the effort to achieve consensus is always important in the
>> presence of Nays.  Treating nays as vetoes is often inappropriate because
>> it admits a form of bull-dozing in the negative.  Note that lazy consensus
>> is a form of unanimous consent, with no explicit requirement for 3 +1s;
>> here an objection is not a veto since lazy consensus is specifically an
>> if-no-objection proposal and objections are invited.
>> 
>> The only firm veto seems to be on commits.  And, of course, the 3 +1s
>> majority is *specifically* for eligible votes on release candidates (and
>> which cannot be vetoed).
>> 
>> The veto business (and the 3 +1s) seem to leak all over PMC practice
>> without ever being made an explicit policy as some sort of urban legend.
>> The fact that a podling mentor can veto actions (and also claim the myths
>> as policy) is probably confusing in that regard (if that is still the IPMC
>> practice).
>> 
>> - Dennis
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>> 
>> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers

2017-03-29 Thread Luciano Resende 
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Raphael Bircher 
wrote:

> Hi Luciano, *
>
> Can we really expect that? I don't think. The subscription we get costs a
> load of money per year for normal people out there. We have to be lucky for
> such an offer. I think, Microsoft don't like to support a inactive
> committer, who save a load of money and work anymore for the ASF. So I
> understand, that they only give the subscribtion for a year. So I think we
> should be thankful for this.
>

Various companies provide free license for their products for open source
usage (e.g. InteliJ, Atlassian) and they have a very simple process for
applying. Looks like for MS we don't have a simple process to apply
anomore, so I was looking at alternatives, and one that came to mind was to
after going through the "long validation process", then the committer is
approved for a long term subscription. Then we could definetly tweak the
process, periodically simle revalidation, where committer would say I am
still using for Open Source purposes, or Termination when MS stop providing
the functionality.


>
> I was also profiting two years from the MSDN Subscription, even the main
> work was for Apache OpenOffice!
>
> Also MS is one of the longest standing Platium sponsor from the ASF (or
> the longest)
>
>
Sure, but we are also producing software that works on the MS platform, and
without the subscription, it gets harder to validate and support gets stale
(e.g a notebook project I help has been having build and running issues on
Windows, and I don't have a valid license to try to fix this on the Win
platform) ... So I believe it's a mutual benefit here.




-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Pierre Smits 
I wonder, when voting in new ASF Members is there the discussion on each
nominee to achieve consensus...

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM 
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:

>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 05:13
> > To: dev@community.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
> >
> [ ... ]
> >
> > Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1
> > with no vetoes". CouchDB's majority-rule for committers is unusual. I
> > hope that CouchDB's bylaws are not adopted as a template for others,
> > as I believe that the rule on committer voting is counter to an
> > important institutional tradition in Apache governance.
> >
> [ ... ]
> [orcmid]
>
> I think there are common misunderstandings about where vetoes are allowed
> (as opposed to No votes that need to be addressed as part of
> consensus-seeking and community cultivation).
>
> My understanding is that votes on *procedural*matters* have no vetoes by
> default, but the effort to achieve consensus is always important in the
> presence of Nays.  Treating nays as vetoes is often inappropriate because
> it admits a form of bull-dozing in the negative.  Note that lazy consensus
> is a form of unanimous consent, with no explicit requirement for 3 +1s;
> here an objection is not a veto since lazy consensus is specifically an
> if-no-objection proposal and objections are invited.
>
> The only firm veto seems to be on commits.  And, of course, the 3 +1s
> majority is *specifically* for eligible votes on release candidates (and
> which cannot be vetoed).
>
> The veto business (and the 3 +1s) seem to leak all over PMC practice
> without ever being made an explicit policy as some sort of urban legend.
> The fact that a podling mentor can veto actions (and also claim the myths
> as policy) is probably confusing in that regard (if that is still the IPMC
> practice).
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>
>

Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers

2017-03-29 Thread Raphael Bircher 

Hi Luciano, *

Can we really expect that? I don't think. The subscription we get costs a  
load of money per year for normal people out there. We have to be lucky  
for such an offer. I think, Microsoft don't like to support a inactive  
committer, who save a load of money and work anymore for the ASF. So I  
understand, that they only give the subscribtion for a year. So I think we  
should be thankful for this.


I was also profiting two years from the MSDN Subscription, even the main  
work was for Apache OpenOffice!


Also MS is one of the longest standing Platium sponsor from the ASF (or  
the longest)


Regards, Raphael

Am .03.2017, 20:53 Uhr, schrieb Luciano Resende :


Ross,

Any chance that MS would actually provide a long term subscription for
Apache Committers to avoid the issues we are currently seeing with renew
process ?

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Ross Gardler  wrote:


It's OK, go ahead and submit. I'll dedupe if necessary (I'm the first
point of failure in the hand over to MS).

Ross

-Original Message-
From: Leif Hedstrom [mailto:zw...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 8:27 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers


> On Mar 27, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
>
> If it were a year ago yes, please resubmit. I updated the forma round  
6
months ago when I picked this up (though as I freely acknowledge  
"picking

it up" is over stating things since so many have not got a renewal yet).

Hmmm, I’m not sure when I submitted mine, is there a way we can see the
list of pending requests? I’d hate to have everyone bother you  
personally

to find out, or resubmit duplicates.

Cheers,

— leif

>
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsber...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 7:00 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers
>
> Hi Ross, I sent in my renewal likely a year ago and pinged you after I
did not hear back in a month or so.  Should I re-submit?
>
> Peter Hunsberger
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Ross Gardler   
wrote:

>
>> Indeed this is messed up on the MS side (I work for MS I can say that
>> ;-)
>>
>> I'm really sorry that the majority of people are having problems with
>> this offer. I can reassure you that if you filled in the form I have
>> your details and will follow through ASAP. Unfortunately that is
>> truly not quickly enough, but this is a complex process that costs
>> the company a great deal of money. Patience please.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhy...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:55 AM
>> To: dev@community.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers
>>
>> Here's some info:
>> https://lists.gt.net/lucene/java-dev/341248?page=last
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Bryan Rosander
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I had a similar experience a few months ago.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bryan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Lars Francke
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I had the same experience as Pavel. Tried last year using that form
 but
>>> got
 no reply.

 On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Piergiorgio Lucidi <
 piergior...@apache.org>
 wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I need to renew my MSDN subscription.
> Does anybody knows something about this?
>
> I have just retried to submit my renewal request using that form.
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> PJ
>
>
> 2017-03-22 7:59 GMT+01:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
> licenses/msdn.txt
>>
>> But I tried it a couple of times last year and got no reply.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Isuru Haththotuwa <
 isurulu...@gmail.com
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Is $subject still offered? Mine has expired, and could not find
>>> a
>>> way
> to
>>> renew it. Found [1] in mail archives, but leads to a 404.
>>>
>>> [1].
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>> licenses/msdn-subscription.html
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Piergiorgio Lucidi
> Technology Evangelist @ Sourcesense Author and Technical Reviewer
> @ Packt Publishing Mentor / PMC Member / Committer @ Apache
> Software Foundation Wiki Gardener / Forum Moderator / Certified
> Instructor, Engineer and Administrator @ Alfresco Top Community
> Contributor @ Crafter Project Leader / Committer @ JBoss
> http://www.open4dev.com
>

>>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers

2017-03-29 Thread Luciano Resende 
Ross,

Any chance that MS would actually provide a long term subscription for
Apache Committers to avoid the issues we are currently seeing with renew
process ?

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Ross Gardler  wrote:

> It's OK, go ahead and submit. I'll dedupe if necessary (I'm the first
> point of failure in the hand over to MS).
>
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Leif Hedstrom [mailto:zw...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 8:27 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> >
> > If it were a year ago yes, please resubmit. I updated the forma round 6
> months ago when I picked this up (though as I freely acknowledge "picking
> it up" is over stating things since so many have not got a renewal yet).
>
> Hmmm, I’m not sure when I submitted mine, is there a way we can see the
> list of pending requests? I’d hate to have everyone bother you personally
> to find out, or resubmit duplicates.
>
> Cheers,
>
> — leif
>
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsber...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 7:00 AM
> > To: dev@community.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers
> >
> > Hi Ross, I sent in my renewal likely a year ago and pinged you after I
> did not hear back in a month or so.  Should I re-submit?
> >
> > Peter Hunsberger
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed this is messed up on the MS side (I work for MS I can say that
> >> ;-)
> >>
> >> I'm really sorry that the majority of people are having problems with
> >> this offer. I can reassure you that if you filled in the form I have
> >> your details and will follow through ASAP. Unfortunately that is
> >> truly not quickly enough, but this is a complex process that costs
> >> the company a great deal of money. Patience please.
> >>
> >> Ross
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhy...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:55 AM
> >> To: dev@community.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers
> >>
> >> Here's some info:
> >> https://lists.gt.net/lucene/java-dev/341248?page=last
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Bryan Rosander
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I had a similar experience a few months ago.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Bryan
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Lars Francke
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  I had the same experience as Pavel. Tried last year using that form
>  but
> >>> got
>  no reply.
> 
>  On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Piergiorgio Lucidi <
>  piergior...@apache.org>
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I need to renew my MSDN subscription.
> > Does anybody knows something about this?
> >
> > I have just retried to submit my renewal request using that form.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > PJ
> >
> >
> > 2017-03-22 7:59 GMT+01:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> There is
> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
> > licenses/msdn.txt
> >>
> >> But I tried it a couple of times last year and got no reply.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Isuru Haththotuwa <
>  isurulu...@gmail.com
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Is $subject still offered? Mine has expired, and could not find
> >>> a
> >>> way
> > to
> >>> renew it. Found [1] in mail archives, but leads to a 404.
> >>>
> >>> [1].
> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
> >>> licenses/msdn-subscription.html
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Piergiorgio Lucidi
> > Technology Evangelist @ Sourcesense Author and Technical Reviewer
> > @ Packt Publishing Mentor / PMC Member / Committer @ Apache
> > Software Foundation Wiki Gardener / Forum Moderator / Certified
> > Instructor, Engineer and Administrator @ Alfresco Top Community
> > Contributor @ Crafter Project Leader / Committer @ JBoss
> > http://www.open4dev.com
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:

RE: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton 


> -Original Message-
> From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 05:13
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
> 
[ ... ]
> 
> Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1
> with no vetoes". CouchDB's majority-rule for committers is unusual. I
> hope that CouchDB's bylaws are not adopted as a template for others,
> as I believe that the rule on committer voting is counter to an
> important institutional tradition in Apache governance.
> 
[ ... ]
[orcmid] 

I think there are common misunderstandings about where vetoes are allowed (as 
opposed to No votes that need to be addressed as part of consensus-seeking and 
community cultivation).

My understanding is that votes on *procedural*matters* have no vetoes by 
default, but the effort to achieve consensus is always important in the 
presence of Nays.  Treating nays as vetoes is often inappropriate because it 
admits a form of bull-dozing in the negative.  Note that lazy consensus is a 
form of unanimous consent, with no explicit requirement for 3 +1s;  here an 
objection is not a veto since lazy consensus is specifically an if-no-objection 
proposal and objections are invited.

The only firm veto seems to be on commits.  And, of course, the 3 +1s majority 
is *specifically* for eligible votes on release candidates (and which cannot be 
vetoed).

The veto business (and the 3 +1s) seem to leak all over PMC practice without 
ever being made an explicit policy as some sort of urban legend.  The fact that 
a podling mentor can veto actions (and also claim the myths as policy) is 
probably confusing in that regard (if that is still the IPMC practice).

 - Dennis


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Jim Jagielski 

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Pierre Smits  wrote:
> 
> 
> Having the must-have-consensus (or unanimity) approach applied to
> everything doesn't work as it stalls moving forward (or beyond petty
> sentiments).
> 

I'm not saying that majority rule is not a viable method to
run a project. Nor am I saying that consensus is a "nice to
have but we shouldn't worry about it" thing is wrong.

I'm just saying that you can't describe that methodology
as being compliant w/ the spirit of the Apache Way.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Using Solr/Lucene to provide our own site search?

2017-03-29 Thread Shane Curcuru 
Wow, so there are folks interested!  Great discussion, and good point:
projects that span projects or are working on broader community aspects
need clear definitions to keep disparate volunteers focused.

There are two things *I* would be interested in helping with:


1- (Small concept) Super easy to use and maintain search widget and
portal for apache.org and community.a.o sites, focused on helping
newcomers find their way to the right "how do I do X" pages.  Value:
Make ComDev efforts more useful by ensuring new users - who might not
know what terminology we use, or where our docs are traditionally stored
- to find the how to information they need.

In terms of structure: it feels like there might be three general kinds
of people searching on a.o/c.a.o:

- General information about Apache (what it is, structure, donate, etc.)
- How To information, like where SVN is, how to change websites, where
different email lists are, etc.
- Project information: either about a specific project, or more likely
"Which projects might I want to contribute to".


2- (Big concept) Creating a simple, drop-in, Apache branded search
widget that we encourage projects to consider adopting on their
homepages.  Value: better search for individual project's users; plus
showcasing some cross-project links and interest.

Obviously, there are several existing setups that provide a lot of this
functionality already (more than I realized).  But it would be really
nice to have a solution that is:

-- Super easy to drop into any existing site's design.
Maven/Forrest/ghpages style sites would be the obvious targets.  (Do we
have stats as to how many projects use each site builder tool?)

-- Branded (primarily) as an Apache Lucene/Solr powered search tool.
The Lucidworks site looks pretty powerful, and does cross-project stuff,
but for me, the interest is providing something that is primarily
powered by Apache tools (even if it uses someone's hosting or extra
code, as a secondary thing).

The search results/refinement pages in particular should match Apache
site designs in general.  The Google custom search results are kinda
ugly, now that I look at them.  The Lucidworks site is nice, but if
we're going to feature this prominently, it would be nice to use Apache
site design, with a text note "powered by LucidWorks Fusion, more
details here" or the like.

-- Maintenance documented.  ComDev already has a lot of code this PMC
owns, and since we're not focused on code daily, we need to ensure
whatever maintenance is easy to do.


Is that a good focus for now?

- Shane


-- 

- Shane
  https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Pierre Smits 
A call to vote (without or without a preceding discussion) is a means to
achieve a result. Equally so is the Veto-principle regarding code changes,
and the consensus-achieving discussion.

What can be derived from the aforementioned 'Veto?/Veto!' discussion is
that equally alienating/destructive are discussions started where each one
only expresses a stand-in-the ground (I want to have my way, and you must
come about) and nobody works towards an acceptable compromise. Such
discussions tend to linger on... And what is more discussion than
discussions about persons?
It sets a tone that will pop up from time to time. And such doesn't help
regarding bringing diversity in. It tends to lead to strategic nominations
and invitations.

Having the must-have-consensus (or unanimity) approach applied to
everything doesn't work as it stalls moving forward (or beyond petty
sentiments).

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM 
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

>
> > On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Pierre Smits 
> wrote:
> >
> > Applying the 'consensus', (or rather the 'every thing must be discussed
> > first') aspect everywhere is equally tyrranical.
> >
> > Hence the existence of the simple majority vote (50% of votes cast, + 1
> > with a min of 3 votes) for procedural matters. And onboarding new
> > committers, members, officers, etc. is a procedural matter. Unless, of
> > course, explicitly defined in bylaws.
> >
> > A -1 is nothing more than an expression of a viewpoint. Without all the
> > rhetoric!
>
> The issue w/ majority ruling is that it tends to self-perpetuate,
> and ensure that the majority continues to rule. It is ripe for
> abuse.
>
> If a PMC must "resort" to resolving things via "well, the majority ruled
> for it" then, imo, it is NOT a healthy and viable community, NOT one
> that will survive long term, NOT one which in in tune with the
> community.
>
> Consistent lack of being able to achieve consensus is a symptom of
> dysfunction
> and a severe warning sign. It is not to be ignored.
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>
>

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz 
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
> ...it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it really
> "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers?...

I like the "vetoes are only for code commits" rule that
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html defines, at least
implicitly.

In the case of committer votes, I think a PMC must take objections
into account even if they are not considered formal vetoes.

But that's a community management / health thing, not a formal mechanism IMO.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Jim Jagielski 

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Pierre Smits  wrote:
> 
> Applying the 'consensus', (or rather the 'every thing must be discussed
> first') aspect everywhere is equally tyrranical.
> 
> Hence the existence of the simple majority vote (50% of votes cast, + 1
> with a min of 3 votes) for procedural matters. And onboarding new
> committers, members, officers, etc. is a procedural matter. Unless, of
> course, explicitly defined in bylaws.
> 
> A -1 is nothing more than an expression of a viewpoint. Without all the
> rhetoric!

The issue w/ majority ruling is that it tends to self-perpetuate,
and ensure that the majority continues to rule. It is ripe for
abuse.

If a PMC must "resort" to resolving things via "well, the majority ruled
for it" then, imo, it is NOT a healthy and viable community, NOT one
that will survive long term, NOT one which in in tune with the
community.

Consistent lack of being able to achieve consensus is a symptom of dysfunction
and a severe warning sign. It is not to be ignored.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Pierre Smits 
Applying the 'consensus', (or rather the 'every thing must be discussed
first') aspect everywhere is equally tyrranical.

Hence the existence of the simple majority vote (50% of votes cast, + 1
with a min of 3 votes) for procedural matters. And onboarding new
committers, members, officers, etc. is a procedural matter. Unless, of
course, explicitly defined in bylaws.

A -1 is nothing more than an expression of a viewpoint. Without all the
rhetoric!
And it seems to me that all the rhetoric viewpoints brought forward in such
discussion about why a certain (non-privileged) contributor should not be
enabled to do more is also a means to deflect from one own imperfection
and/or distrust towards the other.

As an example of such: recently a discussion was brought forward in
general@incubator.a.o. regarding the Log4cxx project (returning it to the
Logging Services project). As I learned from that thread, it seemed that it
was brought forward as a podling because PMC Members on the Logging project
were incapable of having the faith that contributors would work solely on
code belonging to that part of the repo. But that it was feared that they
would work on other code as well after being invited to get the commit bit.
How pityfull (and in my book how not the Apache Way) that a group of people
voted to have such a group of commited contributors (in a way) expelled
from a project and build a successfull community in the incubator project.
Only to discover that such wouldn't happen and the podling reverting to
project it originated from. What a waste of effort and time of many
involved.

Anyway, the CouchDb variant is equally valuable regarding the principles of
the Apache Software Foundation. And I do hope that projects will adopt them.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM 
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
wrote:
>
> This is a key aspect of Apache community success. We use consensus
> decision making to avoid tyranny of the majority. Majority rule
> alienates the losing party. Consensus has beneficial effects in terms
> of forcing the majority to account for minority opinions, thus keeping
> the community unified.
>
> Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1
> with no vetoes". CouchDB's majority-rule for committers is unusual. I
> hope that CouchDB's bylaws are not adopted as a template for others,
> as I believe that the rule on committer voting is counter to an
> important institutional tradition in Apache governance.
>
> Occasionally you reach an impasse where someone is holding out and
> consensus cannot be reached. At that point, I've seen communities
> define a specific supermajority threshold instead of requiring "3 +1
> with no vetoes".
>
> In the abstract, it would be nice if the supermajority rule were
> codified on voting.html, giving communities a template for resolving
> the impasse without thrashing. But ultimately, these votes are not
> legally binding and PMCs can be afforded a certain amount of
> flexibility. The Board cares that communities make personnel decisions
> by consensus, but "consensus" has a little give in it.
>
> (PMC votes on new PMC members are technically recommendations to the
> Board and officially it is the Board that makes decisions on PMC
> composition -- though the Board nearly always follows the PMC
> recommendation. Committer votes do not go through the Board.)
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>
>

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Myrle Krantz 
> Recall at a time, EVERYONE at Apache, and our projects, were fully
> volunteer with unknown and widely varying cycles of free time. We
> understood the ebb-and-flow of available time as an unaligned
> volunteer and based some of our core tenets around that. That's
> why, for example, merit doesn't expire. We realized that some
> time you have time, and some time you don't.
>
> So we never wanted to "penalize" people who were infrequent or
> had inconsistent time. Withholding PMC membership simply based
> on that seems very, very wrong to me.

This depends on what you task the PMC with.  I prefer that a PMC leave
most rule-making to the committers at large  If the PMC is mostly
about approving new committers, then I Jim's interpretation makes a
lot of sense.

Greets,
Myrle

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Jim Jagielski 

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:15 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> 
> I asked a similar question on another list some time back, around voting in
> new committers.  I'm not going to share that thread (public vs private) but
> I think the advice i got from it was spot on.  In addition, I've heard
> great additional feedback on other threads.
> 
> Projects want committers who are infrequent, but able to contribute.  They
> want PMC members who are consistent and dedicated to the project.

Recall at a time, EVERYONE at Apache, and our projects, were fully
volunteer with unknown and widely varying cycles of free time. We
understood the ebb-and-flow of available time as an unaligned
volunteer and based some of our core tenets around that. That's
why, for example, merit doesn't expire. We realized that some
time you have time, and some time you don't.

So we never wanted to "penalize" people who were infrequent or
had inconsistent time. Withholding PMC membership simply based
on that seems very, very wrong to me.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Marvin Humphrey 
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:

> You want
> some form of consensus though through the addition of a committer.  IF
> someone has serious concerns, and is unwilling to change their vote, you
> may want to hold off and monitor a bit further to see when that person
> passes that threshold to become a committer.  You have to have a clear
> understanding through the community though to understand why the person
> voting -1 feels strongly that way, in addition to not scaring the person
> voting into withdrawing their vote - it could be a legitimate issue.
> Though ideally, your discussion thread would flesh something like this out.

+1

This is a key aspect of Apache community success. We use consensus
decision making to avoid tyranny of the majority. Majority rule
alienates the losing party. Consensus has beneficial effects in terms
of forcing the majority to account for minority opinions, thus keeping
the community unified.

Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1
with no vetoes". CouchDB's majority-rule for committers is unusual. I
hope that CouchDB's bylaws are not adopted as a template for others,
as I believe that the rule on committer voting is counter to an
important institutional tradition in Apache governance.

Occasionally you reach an impasse where someone is holding out and
consensus cannot be reached. At that point, I've seen communities
define a specific supermajority threshold instead of requiring "3 +1
with no vetoes".

In the abstract, it would be nice if the supermajority rule were
codified on voting.html, giving communities a template for resolving
the impasse without thrashing. But ultimately, these votes are not
legally binding and PMCs can be afforded a certain amount of
flexibility. The Board cares that communities make personnel decisions
by consensus, but "consensus" has a little give in it.

(PMC votes on new PMC members are technically recommendations to the
Board and officially it is the Board that makes decisions on PMC
composition -- though the Board nearly always follows the PMC
recommendation. Committer votes do not go through the Board.)

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Niclas Hedhman 
Well, isn't that a weak argument, since said company already have majority
and with vetoes can also block to loose such majority. If this happens, I
would assume that someone in the PMC would bring it to Board's attention to
look into the matter, as the only course of action against a malevolent
company taking control of a project, no matter which voting system you
apply.

Cheers
Niclas

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Joseph Schaefer <
joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> The downside to majority rule when it comes to personnel voting is that it
> can lead to a situation where a company having a majority on the pmc can
> increase their majority by voting in additional employees without the
> minority having any way to provide a check on that exercise of power.  Yes
> this has come up in the past.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > on https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
> it
> > describes the process of bringing in a new committer for a "typical
> > project".
> >
> > But in the "Discussion" it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it really
> > "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers? I can't recall
> > seeing that anywhere, not saying it is incorrect, but asking whether it
> > really is "typical".
> >
> > Perhaps we should provide links to a handful of well-known project's
> > processes, to both give a template for projects to work with as well as
> > different approaches.
> >
> > Anyone has any opinion on this matter?
> >
> > Cheers
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Pierre Smits 
The segment (see below)t in the request for graduation to the board is a
remnant of an idea that is brought forward by many project in incubation.


> RESOLVED, that the initial Apache NAME PMC be and hereby is
>  tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to
>  encourage open development and increased participation in the
>  Apache NAME Project; and be it further


It is something that keeps getting in without any consideration regarding
its impact. Not only within the graduating project, but also within the
IPMC or the board. If it is in and ratified through a majority vote (first
by the IPMC, subsequently) by the board  it brings forward 2 actions:

   1.  the newly established must take actions on defining, approving (and
   maintaining), publishing bylaws, and
   2. the board must see to it that it will be done.

In threads elsewhere I have questioned this, and my take-away from postings
by several (ex) board members is that it is of no importance, no need to
follow through, no desire to police.

Seeing that there is no desire among others to address this,I have stopped
bringing this issue forward in (recent) vote-for-graduation requests in
general@incubator.a.o.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM 
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Pierre Smits 
wrote:

> In 2015 I asked a similar quiestion in this same forum. See [1]. I may
> shed some light.
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a4095177b9630643c8957e91b1e1b9
> 77b521db170767eb17eccec9f7@1426899898@%3Cdev.community.apache.org%3E
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> ORRTIZ.COM 
> OFBiz based solutions & services
>
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Joseph Schaefer  invalid> wrote:
>
>> The downside to majority rule when it comes to personnel voting is that
>> it can lead to a situation where a company having a majority on the pmc can
>> increase their majority by voting in additional employees without the
>> minority having any way to provide a check on that exercise of power.  Yes
>> this has come up in the past.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > on https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
>> it
>> > describes the process of bringing in a new committer for a "typical
>> > project".
>> >
>> > But in the "Discussion" it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it
>> really
>> > "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers? I can't recall
>> > seeing that anywhere, not saying it is incorrect, but asking whether it
>> > really is "typical".
>> >
>> > Perhaps we should provide links to a handful of well-known project's
>> > processes, to both give a template for projects to work with as well as
>> > different approaches.
>> >
>> > Anyone has any opinion on this matter?
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > --
>> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>>
>>
>