From what I can tell this is still short 1 IPMC vote. Despite the fact that I
disagree with having a beta release that doesn't include some notion of beta in
the release number, I will try to find time this weekend to review the release.
Ralph
On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Arvind Prabhakar
Just to be clear, although the version number doesn't indicate this the Flume
community considers this to be a beta release.
Ralph
On Mar 19, 2012, at 1:45 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
This is the second incubator release for Apache Flume, version
1.1.0-incubating.
*** Please cast your
On Mar 12, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.org wrote:
The main reason why we feel it is necessary for us to release from the
trunk is because up until now, our trunk contained sources in
com.cloudera.flume
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
The graduation guide[1] recommends that the Rat community demonstrates it's
willingness to govern itself through a free VOTE before asking the IPMC to
approve graduation. So, here it is :-)
See [2] for a draft
Rats - please ignore my vote. I accidentally +1'd the wrong thread.
Ralph
On Feb 24, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 24/02/12 14:04, sebb wrote:
The directory structures align:
/download/jena-tdb-0.9.0
+1
Ralph
On Feb 24, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
This is a call for vote to graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator.
Sqoop entered Incubator in June of 2011. Since then it has added three
new committers from diverse organizations, added two new PPMC members,
and made two
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 24/02/12 14:04, sebb wrote:
The directory structures align:
/download/jena-tdb-0.9.0-incubating
/source-release/jena-tdb-0.9.0-incubating
I see the following files (amongst others) in the RC area
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:16 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Folks,
OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the
running
have
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi...
It has been discussed, since a while, about the graduation of Apache
BVal, whether to graduate to a TLP or Subproject and whether it is time or
not, [1], [2] and [3].
In the past few weeks there has been a
Is this a discussion thread or a vote thread? If it is a vote thread please
restart it with [VOTE]. If you want to discuss whether the project should
graduate then we can do that.
Ralph
On Feb 7, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi...
It has been discussed, since a while,
On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
I fully agree the current Incubator has its issues, but radically killing it
off IMO will also kill off more than just those issues: it will also kill
the Incubator community
I am +1 to what your proposal does. I am not so fond of the wording of it.
I've tried to make changes to eliminate pointing fingers but just couldn't with
the last section. I would suggest you take another stab at editing it to: a)
make this proposal a general document, not just from you, and
On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I see that Ralph already removed the worst of my excesses, and I fixed
a few others. Are we good?
I'm really not in this to win a fight ( -- or an election --) but
rather to help the community reach a consensus by stating a
(hopefully)
On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage
in the discussion, I recommend that we
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:20 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Disbanding the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
problem.
That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
so little wonder you are confused
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
PPMC to have binding votes.
I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I thought I
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote
on releases, add new committers, etc
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:01 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote
Well, to be blunt, that sucks.
No. In all reality, it doesn't. Far too many resources were drained in
the past five years on a handful of projects which never had a hope of
graduating
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
the end of the day, projects don't have ownership
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling
be a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and
responsibility
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
...I just realize something not clear from this proposal: are we *only*
talking
about the Incubator PMC Chair here, or is this a proposal for every
On Jan 28, 2012, at 6:20 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Should the current chair be forced to resign
I'm not going to make an issue of it.
I didn't interpret this as directed at you but at what a new policy on regular
elections of a PMC should be.
Ralph
On Jan 28, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
There's always the perennial chat here and there about rotating the PMC chair
on a regular basis. It's my understanding that other PMCs have adopted this
policy and are quite happy with it. It's also my understanding that some in
this
On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Deepal jayasinghe wrote:
If he has not resigned, why do we have this vote (or why started this
vote) ? forcing him to resign ?
Because it is very poor practice, IMO, to just keep the same PMC chair in place
forever without giving others the opportunity. This
On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Jan 29, 2012, at 6:18 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
FTR: as should be clear from my above response, I disagree with the topic
of this discussion thread. This
Summary for this List:
+1 [1]
0[1]
-1[0]
With the one IPMC member vote from mentors on the dev list and two +1
from general@incubator, the vote succeeds.
IPMC member voting record:
Chris Douglas:+1
Ralph Goers: +1
Ant Elder: +1
I am very confused by your
On Jan 26, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 06:57:08AM -0500, Ralph Goers wrote:
This podling has 4 mentors listed. Only 1 voted on the release.
Situations like this seem to be common.
My worry isn't about the PPMC or committers but about whether
Did you every get another vote?
Ralph
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:46 PM, Eric Yang wrote:
Still missing one IPMC vote. Could someone help out?
regards,
Eric
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 1/15/2012 1:42 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
You know
+1 (binding)
Everything looks fine and the build worked for me. However, I do find it odd
that the online documentation references a binary distribution yet none is
present on the web site below.
On Jan 14, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Eric Yang wrote:
This is a reminder to vote Chukwa 0.5.0 release
You know, you have 4 mentors all of whom are supposed to be IPMC members. Have
they voted?
Ralph
On Jan 14, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Eric Yang wrote:
This is a reminder to vote Chukwa 0.5.0 release candidate 3. We are
still missing 2 IPMC votes to close this vote. If someone could take
a look,
On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/11/2012 11:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 00:33, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Now lets look at the remainder- several projects with no report whatsoever
This has been an issue. Perhaps we
On Jan 12, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name
wrote:
I was thinking about this differently: mentors be responsible for
ensuring IPMC has a complete picture, but normally the PPMC members
write the reports. (Not
I'm not worried about a mentor that can't write a decent report. I want a
podling that can write a decent report. I'm much more worried when the mentor
can't prod the podling to write a report, and doesn't review it or sign it when
they do. If the podling submits a poor report that is
On Jan 7, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or
otherwise emerges around a codebase
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or
otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we are
accepting the COMMUNITY.
And it seems to me that if we are to say that a COMMUNITZY is
On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
As a person wanting to see Apache Bloodhound take off... yeah, I'm making a
judgement call on whether that can better occur at the ASF instead of
within the current Trac community. (fwiw, some of the ideas are
non-starters for Trac, so the
Greg, I do not care one bit how much commit activity happens at Trac. As long
as there is some kind of active community it is improper to fork it without
their permission. As one of the responses on their email thread says, Its just
rude. You can choose to frame it however you want, but if the
On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 2, 2012 10:51 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Greg, I do not care one bit how much commit activity happens at Trac. As
long as there is some kind of active community it is improper to fork it
without their permission
FWIW, this link was used by Sam during the discussion I referred to below -
http://s.apache.org/QeN
Ralph
On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:29 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 2, 2012 10:51 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Greg, I do
Thanks, Jukka.
What I find interesting is that most of the posts in the first thread are after
the vote had already closed here and it seems apparent they weren't even aware
the vote had taken place. From what I read there was a single initial comment
expressing discomfort about the proposal
I find this post disturbing. Had it been posted before the vote closed I most
certainly would have voted -1 as we don't encourage hostile forks at the ASF.
Ralph
On Dec 30, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Ethan Jucovy wrote:
-1
The Bloodhound proposal is to build an issue tracker by first importing the
the incubator PMC
would require the bloodhound project not to start from one.
Ralph
On Dec 31, 2011, at 8:16 AM, Ethan Jucovy wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Ralph Goers
ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote:
I find this post disturbing. Had it been posted before the vote closed I
most
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Incubator PMC members (*),
I've just reviewed the [PROPOSAL] Apache DeviceMap... thread and I
think all relevant issues have been adressed now.
Let's cast your votes to accept DeviceMap as an incubating
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Dec 27, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Incubator PMC members (*),
I've just reviewed the [PROPOSAL] Flex for Apache Incubator thread
and I think all relevant issues have been adressed now.
I have added Anne and Dave Fisher as mentors, pending their
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Coming back to this.
It unfortunately seems that there's no (even optimistic) expectation
that Olio will graduate.
So, voting:
[ ] +1
[ ] -1, no because...
Hen
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:27 PM, William A.
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Oct 2, 2011, at 12:36 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
Hi all guys,
I'm now calling a formal VOTE on the DirectMemory proposal located here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DirectMemoryProposal
Proposal text copied at the bottom of this email.
VOTE close on Tuesday,
On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]
Sent: Saturday, 2 July 2011 1:24 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bluesky calls for a new mentor!
On 7/1/2011 10:19 AM, Luciano Resende
Sorry, but the explanation below makes things sound even worse. Apache projects
are not here to give students a place to do school work. What you have
described is not a community. If the project cannot build a community of
people who are interested in the project for more than a school term
+1
Ralph
On Jun 27, 2011, at 10:49 PM, berndf wrote:
Hi everyone,
this is a vote to retire the Bluesky podling.
3.5 years into incubation, the podling has not made progress in terms of
becoming an Apache project. Dev is still done behind closed doors, and
developers are changing
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Jun Rao wrote:
Hi all,
Since the discussion on the thread of the Kafka incubator proposal is
winding down, I'd like to call a vote.
At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here is
a link to the document in
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Tom White wrote:
As there are no active discussions on the proposal thread, I would
like to initiate a vote to accept Bigtop as an Apache Incubator
project.
The proposal is available at
+1
Ralph
On Jun 10, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
*** Please change your Subject: line for any [DISCUSSION] of this [VOTE]
As the discussions on the OpenOfficeProposal threads seem to be winding down,
I would like to initiate the vote to accept OpenOffice.org as an Apache
Incubator
==
* Tom White
* Nigel Daley
* Ralph Goers
* Patrick Hunt
== Sponsoring Entity ==
* Apache Incubator PMC
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// j...@cloudera.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:39 PM, arv...@cloudera.com wrote:
As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few
days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an
Apache Incubator project. The proposal discussion thread and full text
of the
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this
project, so exactly who the hell are you to
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka c...@lippka.com wrote:
While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my
understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But
this must be
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in
on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was
Saturday
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I
could be wrong.
I don't work for IBM but I do work for a corporation that uses a similar
business
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote:
It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ?
Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on
my laptop or server.
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote:
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06
PM:
I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
collaborated with LibreOffice,
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't
IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in
existence?
Did you not read my
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Please, before you post here could you get some understanding of the ASF?
The Apache Software Foundation doesn't pick anything.
I realize that everyone
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
LibreOffice then I'm sure it would
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
LibreOffice then I'm sure it would
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You
just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's
couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then
there really is
There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope
Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable unless
the pending application is turned down.
Ralph
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
Hi I want to know if there is any formal
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
Hi I want to know if there is any formal clearance on the way OpenOffice.org
ought to be reffered as.
Since the adquisition of Sun by Oracle, they start re-inciting misquotations
of OpenOffice.org as OpenOffice even later they modified
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote:
There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope
Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable
unless the pending
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
There is a pending
On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
Fully disagree. I encourage you to read the terms.
-Keith
- Sam Ruby
This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says:
The Apache License, like most
I've just managed to wade through some 400+ emails to this list in the last 2
days and I would estimate that less than 10 were particularly relevant to what
my vote will ultimately be on this proposal. It seems pretty clear to me that
there is a lot of emotional reaction to this but a lot of
Every Apache project's PMC has a duty and responsibility to award commit
privileges to individuals who contribute to the project and, when warranted,
invite those people to participate in the project management committee. The
conditions the PMC chooses to use to base their decisions on who to
Multiple threads would be welcome.
Ralph
On Jun 1, 2011, at 10:25 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Dumb question. Are we obligated to converse like this, in a single email
thread, for the duration of the proposal review process? Is this an
organizing principle? Would I break anything
A hearty +1 from me. Do you need another mentor?
Ralph
On May 27, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
Howdy!
I would like to propose Flume to be an Apache Incubator project. Flume is a
distributed, reliable, and available system for efficiently collecting,
aggregating, and moving
+1 binding
Ralph
On Apr 23, 2011, at 4:57 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
Hi all ASF mates,
I'm writing to submit a new incubator proposal, Apache OGNL.
Follows below the proposal; this vote will be open for 72 hours and
will be closed on April 26th (Tue) at 12:00 am CET.
Many thanks in advance
I don't recall the Commons PMC saying the project needs to be renamed when it
voted to sponsor this project. If that is necessary I'm sure they will let the
project know.
Ralph
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jeremias Maerki
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Alan Gates ga...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
We are taking it seriously. We (Howl mentors and committers) discussed
this and the consensus seemed to be we wanted to stay with the name if
possible. The
+1
Ralph
On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
I would like to call a vote on accepting Howl as an Incubator project. The
proposal is available at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/HowlProposal. You
can see the discussion from the proposal thread at http://tinyurl.com/5w7y9p9.
+1
Ralph
On Feb 24, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
Given the feedback received so far I think the Rave proposal is in good shape
so I'd like to bring up the vote for accepting Rave into the Incubator.
The proposal is at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RaveProposal and also
copied
On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:24 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
I've made the 2011 change already. But I'm having trouble reconciling
your instructions with this part of the Apache license:
(d) If the Work includes a NOTICE text file as part of its
distribution, then any Derivative Works
Johnson, Doug Cutting,
Emmanuel Lecharny, Jim Jagielski, Kevan Miller, Luciano Resende, Mark
Struberg, Michael McCandless, Ralph Goers, Tim Williams, and Upayavira
The 8 non-IMPC members who are ASF members:
Ate Douma, Brett Porter, Leif Hedstrom, Marcel Offermans, Niklas Gustavsson
On Dec 4, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Dec 4, 2010, at 4:39 AM, Ian Boston wrote:
On 4 Dec 2010, at 01:50, Tad Glines wrote:
2010/12/3 Dan Peterson dpeter...@google.com
The 18 binding votes:
Andrus Adamchik, Ant Elder, Bernd Fondermann, Bertrand Delacretaz, Chris
On Dec 4, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Tad Glines wrote:
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Leif Hedstrom zw...@apache.org wrote:
On 12/04/2010 09:22 AM, Tad Glines wrote:
Also, committers will not be issued accounts until their CLA (either ICLA
or
CCLA) has been received and recorded. Here's the
On Dec 4, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Michael MacFadden wrote:
Ralph,
If I understand correctly, an individual could submit an ICLA first and then
later submit the CCLA if the employer or situation requires it. Meaning that
previously submitting an ICLA would not be in conflict with a subsequent
On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Dan Peterson wrote:
Hi everyone,
Please vote on the acceptance of Wave into the Apache incubator.
The proposal is available at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WaveProposal
(for your convenience, a snapshot is also copied below)
The earlier discussion
On Nov 26, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Tad Glines tad.gli...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 9:47:33 AM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
The word Wave is far more generic than
On Nov 23, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Dan Peterson wrote:
Hello all,
We'd like to propose Wave for entry into the ASF incubator.
Did Google have any trademarks on Wave and are they allowing them to be
transferred to the ASF?
Ralph
On Nov 23, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
On 11/23/2010 04:44 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Nov 23, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Dan Peterson wrote:
Hello all,
We'd like to propose Wave for entry into the ASF incubator.
Did Google have any trademarks on Wave and are they allowing them
On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 20:47, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
...
OK - Have they explicitly OK'd Apache Wave? While Apache Wave would
certainly be unique to Apache, if Google intends to keep using Google Wave
(and Wave
the rights to the trademark GOOGLE WAVE and the wave design logo.
Hopefully, Google will become one of many happy customers of Apache
Wave.
Soren
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Nov
On Aug 18, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
identifying the project with the ASF. Similarly on many occasions we have
asked projects to pick a new name as part of the incubation process. We have
made exceptions for well established brands (ServiceMix ActiveMQ were the
first I
On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
** Community
Since our last report, in May, we have added two more committers.
These are partial committers, meaning they are restricted to certain
portions of the tree. The first, artagnon, is a GSoC student for
Git(!) and is adding
colleagues to
participate.
Ralph
On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Grégoire Rolland wrote:
Hi Ralph,
I'm just posting the proposal of jSpirit Project, could I add you as
Interrested developper ?
Regards,
Gregoire
On 14/07/2010 23:37, Ralph Goers wrote:
How much of the code
This project is definitely of interest to me as my employer does Saas via
multi-tenancy (in our case multi-tenacny means all the clients share the same
code deployment, not the way it is described at wikipedia).
Ralph
On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Grégoire Rolland wrote:
Hi Otis and all
service implementation per tenant.
Thanks for your interest.
Grégoire
Le 14/07/2010 17:06, Ralph Goers a écrit :
This project is definitely of interest to me as my employer does Saas via
multi-tenancy (in our case multi-tenacny means all the clients share the
same code deployment
+1
Ralph
On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
The Portals PMC as Sponsor of the WSRP4J podling as well as the project
community itself has voted [1,2] positive [3] to terminate the podling due to
lack of interest to continue the project.
I would like to call the Incubator PMC
101 - 200 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
