Hi Henry,
thanks! It’s great that you’ve seen (and liked) AsterixDB before.
Even if your time is very limited we would be very happy to have you on board
as a mentor.
I’ll add you to the proposal.
Cheers,
Till
On Jan 19, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
On Jan 19, 2015, at 11:34 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
Looks like a real challenging project, and the proposal looks as if it has
already been through a couple of refinement rounds.
Count on my +1, when it comes to voting.
Will do!
Thanks,
Till
rgds
jan i
On 19 January 2015
Thank you.
So for we’ve added 3 slots for mentors on the proposal - I hope that’ll be
sufficient even for the relatively large number of new committers.
Till
On Jan 19, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Till,
Will try to solicit more mentors to help.
Rob,
I recommend projects to request ICLAs whenever accepting a contribution.
Signing an ICLA has no correlation to being accepted as a committer.
John
On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 6:04:25 AM Rob Vesse rve...@dotnetrdf.org wrote:
All
I keep an eye on the Lucene.Net TLP since I use it in some of my
All
I keep an eye on the Lucene.Net TLP since I use it in some of my other
projects and after a long hiatus the activity in that community has picked
up considerably. However there is one thing that has caught my eye that
they've been doing recently which I'm not sure is strictly necessary. I
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Rob Vesse rve...@dotnetrdf.org wrote:
...My understanding was always that the ICLA is only required if you are a
committer though may still be desirable for larger contributions,...
That's my understanding, requiring an iCLA for minor contributions is
not
On 20 January 2015 at 11:57, Rob Vesse rve...@dotnetrdf.org wrote:
All
I keep an eye on the Lucene.Net TLP since I use it in some of my other
projects and after a long hiatus the activity in that community has picked
up considerably. However there is one thing that has caught my eye that
On Jan 19, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote:
...So make a list of the IPMC members
you believe should judge the other 90%, and submit a proposal to the
board to start a new
Stian
If a community made predominantly of existing Apache committers (or
containing a strong core of) already exists and this would be a small self
contained module as part of Apache Commons then why does the Incubator
need be involved at all?
Why can this not just be submitted directly to
The discussion on dev@commons about coming-to-Apache Commons-RDF
(https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/) seems to be rejecting a
temporary mailing list like rdf@commons as it is seen t be splitting
Apache Commons as a project - the ideal committer on Apache Commons is
caring about all its
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
...Isn’t it obvious what the above and IncubatorV2 proposal are about?
Consolidating
like minded individuals into a new IPMC and shutting out the other
inconvenient
members until they come to their senses”
I
Should be fine.
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 19, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Till Westmann t...@westmann.org wrote:
Thank you.
So for we’ve added 3 slots for mentors on the proposal - I hope that’ll be
sufficient even for the relatively large number of new committers.
Till
On Jan 19, 2015, at 8:17
Can you add your concerns to the end each of the wiki pages?
I intend to update my proposal to clear up the apprehensions that you seem to
have. You can then remove/amend your concerns from the wiki proposal. I will
quickly state that “naughty lists” are not part of the mentor-reboot
On Jan 20, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
...Isn’t it obvious what the above and IncubatorV2 proposal are about?
Consolidating
like minded individuals into a new IPMC and
My strawman, which included a board like IPMC, certainly wasn't about shutting
out inconvenient IPMC members, that is simply a ridiculous a d insulting
suggestion (if it wasn't intended in that way then fine, but it sure sounds
like it).
My strawman was partly about consensus, but mostly about
I agree that incoming codebase can go through the IP Clearance, and if the
committers are already Commons folks (predominantly), and the only actual
issue is the number of mails on the dev@, then I think that separate
mailing list is fine, perhaps with the exception of not having a name
related to
I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so under their
ICLA. In other words if someone feels it does not contain significant IP then
they can commit.
Paperwork is a barrier to entry which is simply not necessary for trivial
contributions.
Sent from my Windows Phone
Excellent; thanks, Jochen!!
Cheers,
Mike
On 1/19/15 11:44 PM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Hi, Chris,
I am interested in the proposal and (following up to my involvement
with VXQuery in the past) would like to offer myself as a mentor.
Jochen
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Mattmann, Chris A
Agreed
The point that I was trying to make is that if those involved already
understand the Apache Way going through Incubation for the sake of it
seems a pointless exercise especially when the legal/IP aspects of things
can be handled in other fashions. If you are in a position to simply
It's not for the IPMC to decide commons policy. If they feel another mailing
list is not appropriate that is their call.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Niclas Hedhmanmailto:nic...@hedhman.org
Sent: 1/20/2015 8:07 AM
To:
On 20/01/15 16:08, Rob Vesse wrote:
On the other hand does Commons-RDF necessarily need to come to the ASF at
all? If it is a small self-contained interface module that will remain
stable what does it gain (other than brand association) by coming to the
ASF?
Well, this question eventually
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
...Under the above proposals, that necessarily messy, frustrating,
exhausting, process
of garnering consensus on the above thorny issues will not take place as
philosophically
compatible IPM v2 members turn out Apache
Just because a lot of Apache committers are involved and could put
things right into another project (or even propose a new TLP directly)
doesn't mean it happens.
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal was voted -1 in
the incubator because it had many Apache folks already and didn't
I hear what Stian is saying about the noise in Commons. If the team feel its
not going to work for them then the incubator might be the right route.
IMHO there is no reason why you couldn't be sponsored by the commons PMC.
You would still need the IPMC to clear releases but that means three
On 20.01.2015 17:16, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so under their
ICLA.
Really? That can't be right: one can't become the author of a change
(and therefore can't license it to the ASF) merely by having committed
it. That's why
On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 1:54:32 PM Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:
On 20.01.2015 17:16, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so under
their ICLA.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:
On 20.01.2015 17:16, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so under
their ICLA.
Really? That can't be right: one can't become the author of a change
(and
Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members?
Regards,
Alan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
On 20/01/15 15:28, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
The suggestion is that Commons-RDF could be a incubator project, but
with a projected path to become part of the Apache Commons instead of
a TLP. (I believe this path has not happened before)
It did happened before:
Benson is correct:
Section 4 of the ICLA states You represent that you are legally entitled to
grant the above license.
It doesn't say you own copyright, only that you have the permission to grant
the license on the copyrighted material (which the copyright owners indicates
by making the
+1 binding
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
Apache HTrace (incubating), after ten release candidates, has voted to
release the below referenced Apache HTrace 3.1.0-incubating release
candidate.
Dear IPMC, please vote on our first release candidate as an Apache
WIth 3+1 (binding), a dodgy binding +1 vote (mine), and a non-binding +1,
the vote passes. Thank you to all who voted. Let me push out our first
release out of incubator.
Thanks,
St.Ack
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Billie Rinaldi bil...@apache.org wrote:
+1 binding
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org javascript:; wrote:
How is that different from pruning the current IPMC membership by
removing inactive members?
Doing *that* would be straightforward. Take the set of mentors on currently
incubating projects, add the
Added my name to the mentor list.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Mike Carey dtab...@gmail.com wrote:
Wonderful; thanks, Ted!!
Cheers,
Mike
On 1/19/15 11:29 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
Chris just asked me under separate cover.
I am happy to help out as mentor.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015
+1
Hal
-Original Message-
From: Hal Lockhart
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 1:16 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] [PROPOSAL] Accept OpenAz (Access Control Tools) into
the Apache Incubator
I call a vote to accept OpenAz as a new Incubator project.
The
This seems to get me the IPMC members, not the PPMC members of podlings. Am I
misinterpreting the page?
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
See the code behind Whimsy (https://whimsy.apache.org/technology.html)
The
Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal was voted -1 in
the incubator because it had many Apache folks already and didn't need
to learn anything. Yet the project didn't move into Apache - perhaps
because it didn't have any pressure or framework to go
As an IPMC member I have objected to this part of the report.
As a Director I have already commented on the report that this practice is
inappropriate. I will ask for that section to be struck from the minutes, we'll
see if other directors agree.
My comment on the report is:
rg: I've already
Sorry misread your request as IPMC
Ross
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:a...@toolazydogs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:17 AM
To: infrastructure-...@apache.org
Cc:
+1 (binding -- though it may not be allowed that I vote on an RC I posted).
From the htrace mailing list [1]:
+1
Verified md5 and signature.
Ran rat and all unit tests.
Was able to assemble a src tarball from downloaded tarball.
St.Ack
1.
Vote passes with:
[6] +1 (binding): hadrian, coheigea, elecharny, pzf, adc, jani
[6] +1 (non-binding): chris rath, rich levinson, pam dragosh, dilli arumungam,
david laurance, hal lockhart
[0] -1:
Congratulations and good luck to the OpenAZ community.
Hal
-Original Message-
From:
On 20 January 2015 at 20:29, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Sorry misread your request as IPMC
Ross
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:a...@toolazydogs.com]
On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:36 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 20 January 2015 at 20:29, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Sorry misread your request as IPMC
Ross
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of
43 matches
Mail list logo
