On May 18, 2004, at 5:48 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I'm changing the subject to make it clear to those skimming their mail
that
this is a VOTE to incubate Beehive, based upon their proposal.
See:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/BrowseList?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 03:06:27AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
However there should be one person (the single mentor that we
originally had) who is tracking the project, the PPMC etc.,
holding them to task and making the Incubator PMC aware of any
issues. That to me is a critical task,
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:13:46PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
When did liason come into this? I am confused as to what on earth
oversite and assistance has to do with liason? I am also confused as to
why having an identified person would restrict others from being involved?
Because
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:44:40PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The role of Mentor is a self-selecting title (eg. anyone wishing to
become a Mentor and has the title to be one as described in our policy
just adds themselves to the projects/index webpage + the project status
page and
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 03:43:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
Why must it be one person? The entire Incubator PMC is responsible, so
why should we limit this to one person?
Not saying there should be only one mentor (in fact I would argue
against it). But I do
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 11:23:40AM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Onto the overall thought - do they have to be Practice PMCs? To me it
sounds very patronsing, although that might just be a culture thing.
On a more serious note however, to me PPMCs are more than practice -
they are the
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 08:39:00AM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
My one concern is that at the moment we have a mentor who has been
officially assigned to assist the project in question, who is a single
contact for the new developers in the event of issues and who is the
single person the
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 02:22:26AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
When the Incubator is coming up for its own quarterly report, I think that
the Incubator Chair can send out a reminder to each PPMC list reminding
them. The PMC, for its part, can and should make sure that there is
sufficient
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 12:45:34PM +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
I have just added the following to incubator/site/projects/jaxme.cwiki. Is
this sufficient?
+1
-aaron
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 10:32:08AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
How about if we had a single list: [EMAIL PROTECTED], consisting
of at least one Incubator PMC member, all Logging Services
PMC members, and developers from the incoming projects to be
incubated?
The
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 02:58:13PM +0100, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
How about if we had a single list: [EMAIL PROTECTED], consisting
of at least one Incubator PMC member, all Logging Services
PMC members, and developers from the incoming projects to be
incubated?
Ah ok I understand now. The Logging
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:47:43PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The status update occurs on the PPMC list. Thus, the notion of
reporting to the main Incubator PMC is a non-issue, as all
Incubator PMC members are also on the PPMC.
I also disagree with this. The purpose of the report
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:32:11AM -0800, Andy Cutright wrote:
i'm interested in the web of trust as well. i've just started following
the incubator/ infrastructure lists. is there a summary of the proposals
some where?
i imagine there are a number of apache committers in the SF bay area,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:40:58PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
No, I never said anything of the kind. I agreed with what you said,
although I would actually suggest that the status be posted to general@,
once agreed upon.
Sounds good to me. +1
-aaron
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:47:43PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
A PMC policy to be determined is whether the PPMC mailing list is optional
for PMC members. The one mailing list created to date (geronimo-ppmc) is
opt-in, although I did pre-subscribe you (along with myself, Geir and
James).
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:41:46PM -0800, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I believe the most appropriate thing is to table this for the PPMC to
handle.
What's the point of pretending the PPMC can take responsibility for
this when at the end of it a bunch of people are going to say it has
to change it's
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:55:15AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
...
Can we get the committers to vote/voice their opinion here so we can
finally wrap this up?
We have decided that the name must be reconsidered by the project. We
don't yet have anything
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:58:02AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
IMNSHO Geronimo can easily go on without a logo or a final name for a
couple of weeks if needed, so I'll wait to get 3 done after 1 and 2 are
done.
Please don't postpone this any longer. We have had a vote. I would
like to
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 05:04:52PM +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Rich Bowen wrote:
The fact of the matter is that, in the USA, any mention of any minority
(aka non-white) historical figure or group of people, by persons not in
that group, is guaranteed to cause someone to be offended.
I
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 08:53:55PM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
[ -0 ] - Let them keep Geronimo as the official name.
[ -0 ] - Punt the decision to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ -1 ] - Disallow Geronimo but allow the committers to come up with any
other name they want
The Geronimo folks are talking about making logos and there seems to
be a desire to have official signoff on the name. Please vote on one
of the following choices:
[ ] - Let them keep Geronimo as the official name.
[ ] - Punt the decision to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ ] - Disallow Geronimo but
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 01:25:40PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
[ ] - Let them keep Geronimo as the official name.
[ ] - Punt the decision to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[X] - Disallow Geronimo but allow the committers to come up with any
other name they want (barring anything inappropriate
I like that one, although it does a lot like June. I guess
that's not a problem.
+1
-aaron
On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 07:23 PM, tetsuo wrote:
- Jun (japanese for excellence, genius;
pure, innocent; conform to, standard)
On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 12:51 AM, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
One question - there were a number of thoughts and caveats raised
before and during the vote. Should we (can we?) put something
together to document exit criteria from the incubation process?
You should definitely document what you
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 11:42 PM, Paul Hammant wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
Sorry to be a nag, but are these all just autogenerated from
javadoc? Surely javadoc output need not be in CVS.
-aaron
Stricktly speaking, there is no need at all for a xxx-site CVS module
for any Apache projects
Sorry to be a nag, but are these all just autogenerated from
javadoc? Surely javadoc output need not be in CVS.
-aaron
On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 04:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hammant 2003/03/15 16:33:22
Modified:
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 06:01 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
[..]
Making progress on getting infrastructural resources is always very
slow at Apache and probably always will be.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html
-aaron
(Forwarding to the incubator list.)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul Hammant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:27:32 AM US/Pacific
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Incubator site update?
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How does the incubator site get updated? I've
Send a patch! :)
-aaron
On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 06:40 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I wonder when this is finally going to be hammered into stone somewhere
on the Apache website. Sorry, couldn't resist.
On 17.02.2003 15:29:41 Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 07
29 matches
Mail list logo
