Re: June report prep
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: The responsibilities of the Report Manager are documented using a script, report_runbook.py, which generates all the necessary commands. Ted, please try running this from a checkout of the Incubator Subversion repo: python3 report_runbook.py --month=6 --apache-id=tdunning The first action of the June report cycle is to send the timeline email to general@incubator. This should be done by the last Wednesday of the month, so that people see it a full week before podling reports are due. Here's a sample: Yay! With the correct version of python, this now works for me. We won't know what problems I had before, but I don't plan to care too much. Hi Ted, Now that the deadline has passed for filing podling reports, we can perform a few more actions. * Normalize podling report formatting. * Generate list of releases. * Categorize the podlings by stage of incubation and create the podling summary. * Edit podlings.xml to assign podlings who did not report a monthly tag so that they don't fall through the cracks. See http://s.apache.org/At0. See the output of report_runbook.py for more detailed instructions and let us know if you have questions. I'll work on the narrative section either tomorrow or Saturday. The goal is to have everything done by Sunday night so that we can send out a mature draft on Monday. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Freemarker Incubation proposal
On 6/2/15 8:02 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: I would proceed with the plan that the project will succeed in graduating. +1. Focus on the positive, and finding new community contributors. Trying to incubate while regularly talking about well, if we don't make it, we're going to leave and do X is not a welcoming feeling. Usually project names stay with the ASF. I am not sure what the policy would be for a project that failed to graduate. I would suspect the project could keep it after leaving. However, if the project fails to graduate the likelihood of it succeeding anywhere would be minimal. The ASF owns all trademarks on behalf of our project communities. For top level projects (TLPs), the intent is to keep all trademarks: as a non-profit public charity, we have a duty to try to keep the reputation of top level projects for the public good. For Incubating projects, we explicitly note that they are *not* top level projects, so the policy is different than for TLPs. If a podling community fails to graduate, but is acting in good faith, the ASF would be happy to arrange any trademark transfers back to the original owners. We have had case(s) in the past where project donors with notable trademarks asked for an explicit clause confirming the return of the trademarks if Incubation fails, which we accepted, so that's OK. In terms of the code, given that any code under SGA or developed during incubation will be under the Apache license, of course the previous team (or anyone else) is welcome to fork at any point. - Shane Ralph On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Daniel Dekany ddek...@freemail.hu wrote: That's certainly won't be a problem in reality, as Jacopo said. What I'm curious about is if what happens if Freemarker gets into the Incubator but then sadly later fails to graduate, so then it has to continue outside ASF, probably with the earlier owners. I guess then we will have to fork the work done during incubation (or can that be given back with some kind of SLG?), which is messy (complicates the license permanently, right?), but doable. But we will need to get the product name back too! Is that promised formally somewhere, or how does that go? Well, let's hope no such thing will happen, but still, I should know this. -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany Thursday, May 28, 2015, 11:39:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: Hi, On Thursday, May 28, 2015, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com wrote: ...Should we move to the next step (that I think is starting a vote)?... I think so, with two comments: Having just two committers is very small but that can hopefully be solved during incubation. The proposal does not mention how the Freemarker name/trademark donation will be handled, if the copyright owners also own the name that won't be a problem. And anyway that can be solved during incubation, but if you can make sure before entering incubation that the name can be donated that's easier. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: June report prep
Does the Sentry podling (PPMC) disagree with their mentors recommendation? I agree with the mentors proposal for both and actually raised this last month as an issue. John On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:56 AM Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Marvin, Thanks as ever for the coaching. One question that has come in from David Nalley is how to deal with the issue of Sentry. They have had some problems with process and seem not to recognize that in the report. David suggests reverting to monthly reports as we try to clear up the questions. I suggest adding a note to the report. The situation is a bit problematic because there are several people in the project who should understand process better and raise this issue themselves. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: The responsibilities of the Report Manager are documented using a script, report_runbook.py, which generates all the necessary commands. Ted, please try running this from a checkout of the Incubator Subversion repo: python3 report_runbook.py --month=6 --apache-id=tdunning The first action of the June report cycle is to send the timeline email to general@incubator. This should be done by the last Wednesday of the month, so that people see it a full week before podling reports are due. Here's a sample: Yay! With the correct version of python, this now works for me. We won't know what problems I had before, but I don't plan to care too much. Hi Ted, Now that the deadline has passed for filing podling reports, we can perform a few more actions. * Normalize podling report formatting. * Generate list of releases. * Categorize the podlings by stage of incubation and create the podling summary. * Edit podlings.xml to assign podlings who did not report a monthly tag so that they don't fall through the cracks. See http://s.apache.org/At0. See the output of report_runbook.py for more detailed instructions and let us know if you have questions. I'll work on the narrative section either tomorrow or Saturday. The goal is to have everything done by Sunday night so that we can send out a mature draft on Monday. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: June report prep
Marvin, Thanks as ever for the coaching. One question that has come in from David Nalley is how to deal with the issue of Sentry. They have had some problems with process and seem not to recognize that in the report. David suggests reverting to monthly reports as we try to clear up the questions. I suggest adding a note to the report. The situation is a bit problematic because there are several people in the project who should understand process better and raise this issue themselves. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: The responsibilities of the Report Manager are documented using a script, report_runbook.py, which generates all the necessary commands. Ted, please try running this from a checkout of the Incubator Subversion repo: python3 report_runbook.py --month=6 --apache-id=tdunning The first action of the June report cycle is to send the timeline email to general@incubator. This should be done by the last Wednesday of the month, so that people see it a full week before podling reports are due. Here's a sample: Yay! With the correct version of python, this now works for me. We won't know what problems I had before, but I don't plan to care too much. Hi Ted, Now that the deadline has passed for filing podling reports, we can perform a few more actions. * Normalize podling report formatting. * Generate list of releases. * Categorize the podlings by stage of incubation and create the podling summary. * Edit podlings.xml to assign podlings who did not report a monthly tag so that they don't fall through the cracks. See http://s.apache.org/At0. See the output of report_runbook.py for more detailed instructions and let us know if you have questions. I'll work on the narrative section either tomorrow or Saturday. The goal is to have everything done by Sunday night so that we can send out a mature draft on Monday. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Freemarker Incubation proposal
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Dekany ddek...@freemail.hu wrote: Thursday, June 4, 2015, 3:30:56 PM, Martin van den Bemt wrote: ...(at least from before 2005 up to 2008 and according to Geir at least from 2000/2001). The 2 names constantly popping up in these threads are Jonathan Revusky and Daniel Dekany... ...I'm much older, means, I can just ignore things that I don't agree with and go on I have absolutely no context to lean one way or the other, but if something actually happened back in 2005-2008 it's safe to assume that people might have changed in the meantime. And incubation is a good way to figure out how people behave, before graduating a project. IOW, based on Daniel's answers the things that Martin mentions don't look to me as obstacles for entering incubation. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.0.0.M9-incubating Release
Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in artefact name - signatures and hash check out - LICENSE and NOTICE has some minor issues (see below) - DISCLAIMER exists - All source files have headers - No unexpected binaries in source release - Can compile from source LICENSE file mentions Apache licensed software, there is no need to do this. [1] There are also some minor issues with the NOTICE file(s) there is no need for MIT or Apache licensed software to be normally mention in the NOTICE file. [2] This was also raised last release candidate, can this please be fixed in the next release candidate? In particular there is a large number of items in the gremlin service notice that are not required. Thanks, Justin 1.http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[RESULT] [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.0.0.M9-incubating Release
Hello Incubators, TinkerPop 3.0.0.M9-incubating votes are now tallied at: +1 (3) -- Justin, Jean-Babtiste, and Hadrian. 0 (0) -1 (0) We will proceed with the official release. Moreover, Justin, note that we see you final comment and will proceed as recommended. Thank you very much for the time you have taken for TinkerPop, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Jun 5, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in artefact name - signatures and hash check out - LICENSE and NOTICE has some minor issues (see below) - DISCLAIMER exists - All source files have headers - No unexpected binaries in source release - Can compile from source LICENSE file mentions Apache licensed software, there is no need to do this. [1] There are also some minor issues with the NOTICE file(s) there is no need for MIT or Apache licensed software to be normally mention in the NOTICE file. [2] This was also raised last release candidate, can this please be fixed in the next release candidate? In particular there is a large number of items in the gremlin service notice that are not required. Thanks, Justin 1.http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Freemarker Incubation proposal
Thanks for the clarification! So this also means that if the mentors can't find a problem now, then it's unlikely that we can't do a releases from the incubator because of some new IP issues cropping up. Good news. Thursday, June 4, 2015, 9:16:45 AM, David Nalley wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Daniel Dekany ddek...@freemail.hu wrote: Wednesday, June 3, 2015, 5:29:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: As soon as it can be done. The question is, why would you want to wait? I thought, maybe, after being voted in, but before actual incubation starts, the legal guys at ASF start looking at the project. Or something like that. Anyway, then I guess we just try to pile up as many SGA-s as possible, and only then try voting, as it was suggested. Generally speaking here's the order: Incubation vote concludes successfully 1. Migration of 'infrastructure' (source code repo, mailing lists, perhaps bug trackers) 2. Focus begins on resolving IP issues (this work is done by the project, and overseen by the mentors) in order to prepare for a release. 3. First release occurs . incubation continues. The legal affairs committee is generally not going to interact with a project unless a mentor or the project makes a request that requires them to. There is a relatively straightforward process for getting software grants dealt with. Going back to your earlier question - occasionally a project will make a release or perhaps even two under the old 'home' - but all of that energy is divergent from building up your new community and figuring out your way around the ASF. --David -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: June report prep
Ted can you give some concrete examples, because I see some good feedback along with folks attempting to address the feedback. Processes updated or re-iterated, etc... I haven't seen any comments like stop the presses till... is addressed and that being ignored. More along the lines of an issue being raised and the community immediately working to address it. For example most recently giving more time to construct the board report. Failing to cc general@ on the vote is a serious issue. That's part of the release process though, it's documented and been followed in previous releases. Human error this time around afaict (along with the mentors, myself included, who didn't notice it till later) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SENTRY/How+to+Release They seem oblivious to process issues Are there specific process issues that are missing and should hold up a vote? I see alot of process related details on their wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SENTRY/Home Patrick On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think that the Sentry PPMC actually disagrees with the mentor's recommendation (and, in fact, at least one person agreed to reverting to monthly reports). But in reading the last 4 months of traffic on the dev list, I really don't think that the PPMC has internalized the critique at all either. They seem oblivious to process issues and have even voted to try to proceed with graduation without really noticing that there are problems. This indicates (to me) that the Incubator shepherds and project mentors are largely not being understood by the PPMC. Neither are the release procedures being internalized. The result is that the conversation tends to go a bit like MENTOR: I see a serious problem X PPMC: We will have to address that in the future ... PPMC: Let's release ... MENTOR: I see a serious problem Y with your release PPMC: We will have to address that in the future ... ... PPMC: Let's graduate There is never an argument or contradiction to the assertion of a problem, but there doesn't seem to be much attention paid either. My impression is that the community is not actually reading the dev list very carefully. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:23 PM, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: Does the Sentry podling (PPMC) disagree with their mentors recommendation? I agree with the mentors proposal for both and actually raised this last month as an issue. John On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:56 AM Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Marvin, Thanks as ever for the coaching. One question that has come in from David Nalley is how to deal with the issue of Sentry. They have had some problems with process and seem not to recognize that in the report. David suggests reverting to monthly reports as we try to clear up the questions. I suggest adding a note to the report. The situation is a bit problematic because there are several people in the project who should understand process better and raise this issue themselves. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: The responsibilities of the Report Manager are documented using a script, report_runbook.py, which generates all the necessary commands. Ted, please try running this from a checkout of the Incubator Subversion repo: python3 report_runbook.py --month=6 --apache-id=tdunning The first action of the June report cycle is to send the timeline email to general@incubator. This should be done by the last Wednesday of the month, so that people see it a full week before podling reports are due. Here's a sample: Yay! With the correct version of python, this now works for me. We won't know what problems I had before, but I don't plan to care too much. Hi Ted, Now that the deadline has passed for filing podling reports, we can perform a few more actions. * Normalize podling report formatting. * Generate list of releases. * Categorize the podlings by stage of incubation and create the podling summary. * Edit podlings.xml to assign podlings who did not report a monthly tag so that they don't fall through the cracks. See http://s.apache.org/At0. See the output of report_runbook.py for more detailed instructions and let us know if you have questions. I'll work on the narrative section either tomorrow or Saturday. The goal is to have everything done by Sunday night so that we can send out a mature draft on Monday. Marvin Humphrey
Re: June report prep
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: David, me, you, or any other interested party could also add a section in the general narrative at the top of the report mentioning that Sentry has been a topic of discussion on general@incubator. I'll probably do that. I see that Joe Brockmeier has taken care of this: http://s.apache.org/roE Thanks Joe -- what you wrote looks great! Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: June report prep
Well, I do have to say that my impressions are based on an accelerated reading of the dev list, but I really didn't see much attention paid to issues like the preparation of the report, posting a vote result email to the right place and so on. More importantly as far as my impression is concerned I really didn't see much reaction to correction. What I have seen in other communities in incubation has been any of several reactions from disputing requirements, shock that they had missed a step, or some other indication of attachment to what is happening. It is very hard to quantify or point to but I really got sort of a dissociated feeling from the mailing list, almost as if the action was happening somewhere else and the mailing list was peripheral. For that matter, I didn't see design discussions much at all and only saw one external question which was shut down with a we don't plan to do this, maybe someday instead of the more customary and inviting we don't do this bit would love to hear your thoughts and possibly an implementation. On the positive side, release reviews appear to be checking the right things, although not holding a vote on general@ negates such virtues. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 5, 2015, at 20:23, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote: They seem oblivious to process issues Are there specific process issues that are missing and should hold up a vote? I see alot of process related details on their wiki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: June report prep
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: One question that has come in from David Nalley is how to deal with the issue of Sentry. They have had some problems with process and seem not to recognize that in the report. David suggests reverting to monthly reports as we try to clear up the questions. I suggest adding a note to the report. The situation is a bit problematic because there are several people in the project who should understand process better and raise this issue themselves. There are two issues here: 1. What should go in the report. 2. What actions to take regarding Sentry, if any. David has already provided his perspective in an excellent Mentor comment on Sentry. The formatting needs to be cleaned up, but I think that's the optimal spot on the report for that information. David, me, you, or any other interested party could also add a section in the general narrative at the top of the report mentioning that Sentry has been a topic of discussion on general@incubator. I'll probably do that. The only other thing about commenting on Sentry is that it's important to get any such material into Monday's DRAFT in order to give the Sentry community (both contributors and Mentors) sufficient opportunity to review and respond if necessary. Adding commentary *after* the DRAFT goes out is dangerous. With regards to what actions to take, Sentry Mentors David Nalley, Patrick Hunt, and Joe Brockmeier are all engaged and I'm content to defer to their judgment. If they think that reporting monthly for the next three months is appropriate, they can edit podlings.xml themselves, or they can ask for someone else to do it and I'm sure John, me, you or another volunteer would help out. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Johnzon 0.8-incubating
Looks good. +1 Le jeu. 4 juin 2015 à 12:43, Hendrik Dev hendrikde...@gmail.com a écrit : The Apache Johnzon PPMC has voted to release Apache Johnzon 0.8-incubating based on the release candidate described below. Now it is the IPMC's turn to vote. Git commit for the release is https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-johnzon.git;a=commit;h=bb26c1e8c87d7e71f7b7f6917397ed91d0866ff7 Maven staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejohnzon-1005 Source releases (zip/tar.gz): https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejohnzon-1005/org/apache/johnzon/apache-johnzon/0.8-incubating/apache-johnzon-0.8-incubating-src.zip SHA-1:ba84658479be7ce1f2d716050877dfcc60c968ae https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejohnzon-1005/org/apache/johnzon/apache-johnzon/0.8-incubating/apache-johnzon-0.8-incubating-src.tar.gz SHA-1:5f80019b159862f2178898f35061307762e51ba3 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejohnzon-1005/org/apache/johnzon/apache-johnzon/0.8-incubating/apache-johnzon-0.8-incubating-src.tar.gzSHA-1:5f80019b159862f2178898f35061307762e51ba3 PGP release keys (signed using 90910A83): https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/johnzon/KEYS This release introduces websocket (jsr356) integration, fixes some minor issues like encoding, java 1.6 build stuff and configuration defaults. It contains also a bugfix so that Johnzon does now work properly in OSGI environments. Project vote passes with 4 binding +1 votes, one non-binding +1 vote and no -1 votes: http://markmail.org/thread/cjmvumtobyprbs6j http://markmail.org/thread/i47a526iqxaw4vsf The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. [ ] +1 approve [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks Hendrik -- Hendrik Saly (salyh, hendrikdev22) @hendrikdev22 PGP: 0x22D7F6EC - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: June report prep
I don't think that the Sentry PPMC actually disagrees with the mentor's recommendation (and, in fact, at least one person agreed to reverting to monthly reports). But in reading the last 4 months of traffic on the dev list, I really don't think that the PPMC has internalized the critique at all either. They seem oblivious to process issues and have even voted to try to proceed with graduation without really noticing that there are problems. This indicates (to me) that the Incubator shepherds and project mentors are largely not being understood by the PPMC. Neither are the release procedures being internalized. The result is that the conversation tends to go a bit like MENTOR: I see a serious problem X PPMC: We will have to address that in the future ... PPMC: Let's release ... MENTOR: I see a serious problem Y with your release PPMC: We will have to address that in the future ... ... PPMC: Let's graduate There is never an argument or contradiction to the assertion of a problem, but there doesn't seem to be much attention paid either. My impression is that the community is not actually reading the dev list very carefully. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:23 PM, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: Does the Sentry podling (PPMC) disagree with their mentors recommendation? I agree with the mentors proposal for both and actually raised this last month as an issue. John On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:56 AM Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Marvin, Thanks as ever for the coaching. One question that has come in from David Nalley is how to deal with the issue of Sentry. They have had some problems with process and seem not to recognize that in the report. David suggests reverting to monthly reports as we try to clear up the questions. I suggest adding a note to the report. The situation is a bit problematic because there are several people in the project who should understand process better and raise this issue themselves. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: The responsibilities of the Report Manager are documented using a script, report_runbook.py, which generates all the necessary commands. Ted, please try running this from a checkout of the Incubator Subversion repo: python3 report_runbook.py --month=6 --apache-id=tdunning The first action of the June report cycle is to send the timeline email to general@incubator. This should be done by the last Wednesday of the month, so that people see it a full week before podling reports are due. Here's a sample: Yay! With the correct version of python, this now works for me. We won't know what problems I had before, but I don't plan to care too much. Hi Ted, Now that the deadline has passed for filing podling reports, we can perform a few more actions. * Normalize podling report formatting. * Generate list of releases. * Categorize the podlings by stage of incubation and create the podling summary. * Edit podlings.xml to assign podlings who did not report a monthly tag so that they don't fall through the cracks. See http://s.apache.org/At0. See the output of report_runbook.py for more detailed instructions and let us know if you have questions. I'll work on the narrative section either tomorrow or Saturday. The goal is to have everything done by Sunday night so that we can send out a mature draft on Monday. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
