Looks good to me (although I've haven't been around incubator that
long), one point:
In the Background section theres a link to podling websites which
points to info about the incubator website:
i.e. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html
which I think should point to the info
On 10/2/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 1, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This is why I keep pushing back with the idea that we bootstrap in
a defined
manner:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects
Feathercast is hoping to do an episode about the incubator, and for that
we'd like to talk to one or more projects that are undergoing
incubation. The idea is to get their story and their experiences (good
and bad) to try and help others and explain what exactly the incubator
can and can't do.
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of
community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is
allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore. Even worse, we now
don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:22:36PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
I do not think there has been any piling on. We reviewed each name on
the list carefully and a name only went on the list if we were convinced
that the individual had either (1) contributed previously to either
Celtix or Xfire or
I have not yet had any response to the second VOTE request after I re-rolled
the Woden M6 release files. This is becoming urgent as the M6 release is
required for upcoming the Axis2 1.1 release, so this is a gentle reminder
for any Incubator PMC members from Apache WS.
There were two binding +1
I do want to be clear about this piling on issue since I think there is
still some misunderstanding.
I do not think there has been any piling on in the sense of trying to
influence the project through stacking the voting list. That is not at
all what is going on, nor is it our intention.
I
I'd be happy to help on general@
Tim
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Any volunteers for general@incubator.apache.org and/or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (for this, only PMC members are eligible)?
Just one or two would be nice.
--- Noel
On Sep 27, 2006, at 1:17 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
issues addressed in this release:
1. updated proposal included
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
3. OASIS issue addressed
Thanks Ian.
+1,
Leo
[ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this
Hi,
I've created the starting point for these reports at
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2006 using our reporting
schedule. Now let's play fill in the blanks ;)
Yoav
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please note. Today is October 1. Time to start getting the
On 10/3/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Just to pose an outsider view, being new to the ASF and not to hijack
the discussion on the CFX/CeltiXFire, I would like to share my views
on the policy of the incubator.
From the documents I have read on the policy for entering, being
On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is
natural for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's at least get CXF off to a good start!
Sorry guys .. +1 from me.
Sanjiva.
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 11:52 +0100, John Kaputin (gmail) wrote:
I have not yet had any response to the second VOTE request after I re-rolled
the Woden M6 release files. This is becoming urgent as the M6 release is
required for upcoming the Axis2 1.1 release,
As Noel suggests, I did indeed intend this reply to go to
general@incubator.apache.org ...
---BeginMessage---
Sounds interesting.
Does this still include the hardware portability layer? Any synergies with
APR? Does it include the AWT code?
--- Noel
-Original Message-
From:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:32 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
(cayenne-2.0.1-incubating/doc/api/cayenne/apache-javadoc.css i
think was missed)
Oops - fixed that on the 2.0 branch and trunk.
Thanks
Andrus
-
To unsubscribe,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I don't like that. I don't like that fact that from
the start, those who are approved as initial committers
aren't on the PPMC.
Fact, or would-be fact according to the proposal?
If that means we need to trim the
size of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
Is random denial of initial commiters typical?
Not at all, in fact I'm confident that's never ever happened. The
assertion that this decision is random is a little offensive.
No offense meant, but given the blackbox
Thanks Sanjiva.
Paul and Dims, are you still +1 on the re-rolled release?
regards,
John Kaputin
On 10/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry guys .. +1 from me.
Sanjiva.
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 11:52 +0100, John Kaputin (gmail) wrote:
I have not yet had any response to
Yes, +1 from me.
-- dims
On 10/4/06, John Kaputin (gmail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Sanjiva.
Paul and Dims, are you still +1 on the re-rolled release?
regards,
John Kaputin
On 10/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry guys .. +1 from me.
Sanjiva.
On Wed,
If there is one on Tuesday, great. I'll be in a tutorial all day (can't get
out: I'm the one giving it :-)). But if folks would work with Dave Reid on
improving our site automation, that'd be terrific.
--- Noel
-
To
robert burrell donkin wrote:
bootstrapping is simply a description of the only process available
ATM. the mentors (as incubator pmc members) are the only ones on the
project who have the binding votes required to take decisions (such as
appointed PPMC members).
if this process isn't good
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
quorum of three PMC +1 votes.
EXACTLY! A minimum of three PMC +1
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
If the PPMC represents the *community* then I like it. But (for me) the
mentors are *not* the community of the podling.
Of course not. They are there to provide guidance *AND* the necessary
official PMC oversight (AND VOTES) required for ASF decisions.
Anything that
Eric,
I realize we may have created some difficulties in merging two existing
projects - Celtix from ObjectWeb and Xfire from Codehaus
But we are nonetheless simply trying to do the right thing, not
stacking the deck to control the project.
OK, let's please stop right here. At least in
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
quorum of three PMC
APACHE INCUBATOR PROJECT STATUS: -*-indented-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2006-02-05 04:40:19 -0500 (Sun, 05 Feb 2006) $]
Web site: http://Incubator.Apache.Org/
Wiki page: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
[note: the Web site is the 'official' documentation; the
I still have a concern about the notification requirement on the OASIS IP
FAQ, but that can be resolved during Incubation.
And, yes, we've seen the vote result. :-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
28 matches
Mail list logo
