On 1/31/2012 3:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is
significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure
itself more like a board and less like a project, I really don't have
much to say against that. Note that
On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
In replacement, I propose the following concrete actions:
1. Move the Incubator process/policy/documentation, etc., to ComDev - I
agree with gstein on this. I think it could be maintained by the ASF community
folks there, and updated
On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel
votes are by
On 1/30/2012 7:41 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Lemme get this straight: a person who makes a class-action
veto against a whole swath of people should have those votes
upheld to protect that person from the tyranny of the majority?
No. Joe, take a break. Then come back, and reread both threads,
On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
lightly tossing around -1's that the notion
On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher
On 1/29/2012 12:11 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I intend to nominate Noel J. Bergman but would like to see the community come
to a consensus about the rotation of the chair. (Dibs on Noel) :)
If this goes to a nominations and a ballot, isn't that implicit that
we've agreed to rotate the
On 1/26/2012 5:57 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Now you have me worried. This podling has 4 mentors listed. Only 1 voted on
the release. You indicated you were too busy to look at it and the other two
didn't participate at all. Although the tally below is obviously incorrect
and needed to be
On 1/25/2012 11:49 PM, Eric Yang wrote:
The voting period is now closed. Thanks to everyone who took the time
to review the release.
Result 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
On 1/12/2012 9:02 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Once a podling is created, and until it graduates, its Champion must:
1. Coordinate the creation and timely delivery of the podling's board reports.
2. Keep an eye on the mentors' activity and take action (ask for new
mentors, talk to the
On 1/15/2012 1:42 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
You know, you have 4 mentors all of whom are supposed to be IPMC members.
Have they voted?
Nope, traveling, and now back in project hell at one of my own
homes. I did review the Chukwa monthly report and comment on
several apparent issues on dev@. I
On 1/17/2012 4:03 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Yes, but this may wind up raising the bar for the
Champion position so high that we wind up with
fewer people offering to fulfill it.
In those cases, perhaps there is nobody actually qualified and willing
to Champion the project at all? In which case
On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
-1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
Celix
A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into
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 need to put some teeth in the
requirement, such as closing
On 1/10/2012 6:40 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot anyways.
I believe the point was to settle the issue so that we don't have to
deal with this situation again.
Roy
That was the
On 1/10/2012 2:20 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
I'm actually not seeing much in the way of contradiction in discussion
of the policy.
The letter seems to be: Apache projects don't import and incorporate
code without the owners' consent. License to use is not synonymous
with consent to
On 1/10/2012 4:04 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Greg both acquiesced in picking another plan while at the same time he
did not retreat from the position that there is no set Foundation
policy here. Roy takes a strong and continuing line that there is one.
So I personally wish that the board
On 1/10/2012 3:50 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
The IPMC is perfectly capable (in its own sometimes messy way) to deal
with this issue. In fact the board has explicitly delegated the
responsibility of acceptance and oversight of new products submitted
or proposed to become part of the Foundation
On 1/9/2012 7:04 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
I don't think Wookie should graduate, but it certainly shouldn't be
kicked out (and I don't think it will be). However, as I not above
incubation may be holding it back. The question for me is, can we do
more for projects that are in this position?
On 1/9/2012 11:40 AM, Upayavira wrote:
Regarding attrition of mentors, it was discussed having mentors 'sign'
the board report for their podling. Could that be encouraged, and used
as a sign of minimum 'activity' for a mentor?
How about simply sign off on podling-dev@? Even if it is Thanks
On 1/9/2012 12:27 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Lame. I would actually like to see mentors WRITING the reports
at least for the first 6 months to a year, then going to sign-off
on the wiki.
My point was, all mentors need to reply to the draft. -One- of them,
or a leader in the community would
On 1/3/2012 2:02 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 3, 2012 2:30 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com 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 not care one bit how much commit activity happens at
On 1/3/2012 10:55 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:48 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
... Folks, can we please find a better forum for religious This is the ASF
debates
to occur? And keep discussions non-toxic here on general@incubator?...
I
On 1/3/2012 11:14 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 3, 2012 11:48 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
...
A PMC I am on had this exact conversation with board members several
months ago regarding a code base the project is dependent on that is housed
outside the ASF which we were
On 1/3/2012 11:43 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I don't understand the purpose of a vote here. Roy has stated rather
firmly that [2] is settled foundation policy.
Pointer to where that policy was established, or it didn't happen.
It might have been a consensus relative to some specific incident
On 1/3/2012 11:43 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Would some please clarify is this is *truly* a hostile fork?
Wrong thread, see Subject: above. Thx.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For
On 1/3/2012 12:51 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Kalle Korhonen
kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
So the generic policy is there is no generic policy, and instead there
is appropriate application of
On 12/21/2011 1:35 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 20 December 2011 22:35, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 12/20/2011 4:24 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
The proposal says Existing Flex-related conferences, podcasts and
websites
On 12/21/2011 3:00 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
As long as there's no confusion as to which Flex is which, and as long
as there's no favoritism in how people are allowed to use the Flex
name, I think this might work.
Whoa... slow down. You are not correct Bertrand.
As long as there is no
On 12/21/2011 4:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
I totally agree that the use of the Apache Flex trademark needs to be
clearly defined - once the podling starts.
Or rather, before it is allowed to graduate. That is but one of the many
steps during graduation, determine the provenience of
On 12/20/2011 4:24 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
The proposal says Existing Flex-related conferences, podcasts and
websites should be allowed to continue using “Flex” as part of their
name - Apache Flex will have to create guidelines for that.
Whilst I don't see any problem with that in principle
On 12/13/2011 5:20 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 13 December 2011 11:15, seba.wag...@gmail.com seba.wag...@gmail.com
wrote:
My questions is not about who collects the money, we can forward requests
to http://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html
But can we list those companies /
On 11/29/2011 9:52 AM, sebb wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html was just recently revised by
Roy Fielding (ASF Director and founding officer) based on some nonsense
back-channel complaints, and might be worth integrating into incubator
docs.
Would it not be better to integrate the
No committee can take action without a majority on that committee
approving the action. The VP might take action by fiat (they are
given that authority) - I can't imagine that would ever happen
except in consultation with legal-private@ for a legal issue raised
on private@ that impeded that
On 11/29/2011 10:26 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
This does seem odd.
This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
cannot be held back by any entity or
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but
On 11/29/2011 2:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
I've been wondering whether F2F meetups (bootcamps) for the incubator
might be a way forward
Every retreat I've attended - which translates to those in Wicklow -
has included some level of incubator orientation, and some participation
by a
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen a point to 2) to running serial votes. You need only 3
On 11/29/2011 7:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen
On 11/29/2011 7:50 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
So, you are saying option 2 is a reasonable choice, given that only the
NOTICE/LICENSE files have changed one line here and there ?
Yes, if you let the 72 hour vote run through with a clear message that
it will be rerolled with a short vote.
If
On 11/27/2011 3:34 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I think I've been leading a sheltered existence. In the TLPs of which
I play a part, over the 5 years or so that I've been around, I've
never seen a release proceed past a -1. Every single time, a -1 has
led to recutting the release.
That is
On 11/28/2011 1:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
That is because, every single time, the RM agreed that the release
was worth re-cutting.
We have been assuming that it is the rule of Apache to cut another RC even
if it gets a single -1 vote.
And that isn't correct, as Joe was kind enough to point
On 11/28/2011 3:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 11:21 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
No - nobody can veto a release. But you also can't slip in a vetoed patch
and say this is a release vote, its not subject to veto. Well, as I had
hinted, the RM can withdraw a vote, which
On 11/19/2011 1:45 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Should we appoint one of the mentors at the start to be the chair of the
PPMC, in the same way as a full project? I would see them as responsible for ensuring the
podling is reporting, and that all of the mentors are engaged and signing off the
On 11/21/2011 11:11 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Speaking wearing a hat:
There is no requirement for monolithic releases. The project can
choose whatever units it likes to release, so long as each one of them
is fully buildable from the materials voted on in the release. If they
want to hold one
On 11/21/2011 5:13 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Do you see any validity in my theory that the ipmc is so large and
diffuse as to be directionless?
Of course. It applies to the ASF as a whole.
But Incubator submissions keep coming, as (generally part of one of)
1) dev lib functionality, 2)
On 11/16/2011 9:26 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
NOTE: and yes, Adobe is doing this right: they say they are crafting
*proposals*.
Still chuckling that h-online somehow[1] avoided making any stupid
errors in their article w.r.t. either Adobe or Apache or the incubation
process ;-P
[1] Thanks
On 11/11/2011 1:58 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I *suggest* that incubator change the procedure such that all
committers (or at least all committers within a single LDAP
group) have access to all incubator areas and that new people
simply be requested to only commit within areas for which they
On 10/30/2011 8:05 PM, David Crossley wrote:
Benson Margulies wrote:
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Thinking out load: perhaps just promote the project into a TLP, while
having a few IPMC members volunteer to become PMC members of the new TLP
and provide oversight?
Yup. No muss, no fuss, no new
On 8/17/2011 12:47 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:40 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 8/17/2011 12:37 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
The copyright item isn't signed off at
https://incubator.apache.org/projects/olio.html.
So would need to delete the code
On 8/17/2011 12:37 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
The copyright item isn't signed off at
https://incubator.apache.org/projects/olio.html.
So would need to delete the code (assuming a successful retirement vote).
Where are the mentors?
Wondering how conflicted-providence IP would hit svn in the
On 7/5/2011 7:36 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Anyhow, what do other think? Should mentors be pushing early and often
on this subject, or is it reasonable wait for, oh, 18 months and a few
releases before getting pushy?
18 months and 'a few releases', with no obstacle but attracting more
On 7/5/2011 7:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I wasn't clear on the timing. They launched in Nov 2010 and have made
one release. It will be 18 months in June of 2012. the question I was
trying to explore was, 'how essential is it to have shown that they
can attract and integrate new people
On 7/1/2011 4:04 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]
We also made it clear the *author* should also commit their own code, and
all authors should become committers.
Each term (semester) Bluesky will get a new crop of students (committers
On 7/1/2011 7:58 PM, Chen Liu wrote:
We're preparing for the 4th version release.
We need the whole July to do this work,thanks for your patience.
Ok, stop.
I think you are all conflating releases with what is required
to continue here at the ASF.
releases have not been the main issue.
The
On 7/1/2011 8:10 PM, Chen Liu wrote:
We've already known our failure in ASF. We would not
find any excuses for this bed situation.
But we just hope one more month to release the 4th version work.
We've been advancing Bluesky project and now the 4th version is an
integtared system including
On 6/28/2011 12:49 AM, 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 frequently without
On 7/1/2011 10:19 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
Based on the email trail recently, I'm in favor of completing the
vote. I think that there is sufficient evidence that this project has
'failed to launch' as an Apache
Bill Stoddard
+1 struberg Mark Struberg
-1 twilliamsTim Williams
+1 upayaviraUpayavira
+1 wroweWilliam A. Rowe Jr.
+1 zwoopLeif Hedstrom
Non-binding:
+1 aaf Alexei Fedotov
+0 aku Andreas Kuckartz
+1 asavory Andrew Savory
+1 bayard Henri
On 6/13/2011 11:26 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
Binding votes are ones that are cast by Incubator PMC members. Quorum
is 3 binding +1 yes votes.
On 6/13/2011 11:31 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Phillip Rhodes
Mondo rad. But one quick question what does the (v) mean, listed after
some of the names in the voter list?
I meant to either explain that or remove it. Oh well. :-)
That was my own personal
On 6/12/2011 4:03 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Not that much;
* Same players.
* Same importance.
Really?
I'm pretty certain there is 0.05% overlap between the Office Suite
and Java Runtime mechanics of either Sun or IBM. They probably never
even shared so much as a VP, although I could be
On 6/10/2011 11:02 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Please cast your votes:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
+1 [binding]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
On 6/10/2011 11:45 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
For us outsiders, can you explain who is allowed to vote and in what way,
please?
Everyone is welcome to vote.
Binding votes include all Incubator Project Management Committee members.
Non-binding votes can and do influence the opinions of committee
On 6/10/2011 12:04 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
(Officially I'm on the incubator PMC I believe but I have not been active ..
so lets chalk this up for non-binding.)
Then you just cast a binding vote. Feel free to change it, or withdraw it,
but the committee roster determines which binds.
On 6/10/2011 2:04 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Please. Being on a PMC can't *reduce* one's rights.
So, if I were on the PMC and I said +1 (intentionally non-binding),
I would expect it not to be counted as binding.
Then state I would vote +1 but haven't spent sufficient time reviewing
this,
On 6/8/2011 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo
LibreOffice on a technological level and on a distribution level
2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony).
I
On 6/8/2011 11:12 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that a copyleft swallow or an ALv2 swallow?
No definitive indicator for the latter, but if it consumes parts of
the other, then it must be the former ...
I believe the
On 6/7/2011 10:23 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
One question about the comment above though: Are you advocating that Apache
OOo stick to source-only releases, and avoid
building and delivering binaries altogether? Or is your idea that Apache
OOo would deliver builds, but that they be Vanilla
On 6/7/2011 11:11 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Just to clarify, only source code is released by the ASF. Yes, there may
I don't believe this is true - we have to release the source, but
anything we distribute
On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Danese Cooper dan...@gmail.com wrote on 06/07/2011 03:43:56 PM:
Apache don't think that money is evil, but we also believe that
seeing our code in wide use is more important than money.
OpenOffice.org is important to the Developing World,
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 decide what they should
and shouldn't devote that time and energy to?
I am just a volunteer
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd,
was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior
On 6/6/2011 4:55 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
that being said - can OOo really be treated like each other podling? I
start to feel it might not be the case. Can we change the rules while
the game? Yes, we can. I would be very dissappointed if we would obey
blindly to our own rules just
In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be
raised here...
On 6/5/2011 3:30 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
Why open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of
software to be made proprietary
On 6/5/2011 10:43 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 6/5/2011 5:30 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01
PM:
This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for
entering the incubator are not high and so
On 6/5/2011 5:45 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (05-06-11 23:25)
So, it does not logically follow that if a proposal at Apache is rejected
that we go to TDF/LO.
After all, why would you ?
Purely argumentative posts aren't appropriate on this forum. Take it elsewhere.
On 6/5/2011 6:19 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
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
On 6/5/2011 6:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own.
That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our projects,
but somehow they manage to
On 6/5/2011 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
With the exception of pure-BSD purists (who reject the patent clauses)
AL can be mixed with any code to come out with the more restrictive of
the licenses.
AL + BSD == AL
AL + MPL == MPL
AL + GPL == GPL
The following are not possible
On 6/5/2011 3:56 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
others, Free/Libre software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work
is ever Free/Libre. There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought,
and we won't go into detail
On 6/5/2011 7:13 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
This is what I entered into the wiki:
The
On 6/5/2011 8:26 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
We are now 50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a
contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing.
Let's remember please to not feed
On 6/5/2011 9:33 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this
place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand
why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the
LibreOffice part of the OOo
On 6/5/2011 11:43 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
Agreed. I wish I had a clearer idea of what constitutes a good
reason to reject an incubator proposal on principle, though - even
just a good enough reason to reject this one. As long as there is
some promise of building a community and IP / grant
On 6/4/2011 7:37 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
It is not relevant how ASF would answer these questions.
You see, I think it is, and apparently other mentors do as well...
I'm open to to possibility that a 6-month old open source association with
a single project might have more
On 6/4/2011 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Our emails may have crossed in the ether. My suggestion is that I
take ownership of this question. I will state that I do not plan to
proceed via this questionnaire.
I missed the *what* you were taking ownership of :) Coolio, and thanks.
On 6/3/2011 10:20 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others
can comment
much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play
together, and what
ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be
On 6/3/2011 12:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
collaborate once
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. It would
be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM
On 6/3/2011 1:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.
You need to flush your cache... ~20 committers
On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get
such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following
questions. This would help us understand what room there is for
negotiation and what is not
On 6/3/2011 9:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties,
or whatever... There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that
I have done wrong, or did not do, or did not due to someone's satisfaction.
If people want, I will
OpenOffice.org will be contributed to Apache Software Foundation by Oracle
Corporation in compliance with ASF licensing and governance.
Luke, could you offer some insight into affixing the Apache License v2.0
to this code base? Only ALv2 code is released by the foundation.
LGPL/MPL cannot
On 6/1/2011 8:41 PM, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
My questions then are absolutely pragmatic and relate—hence the to post—to
issues not so far discussed:
* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
* We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good purposes. We
grant these,
On 6/1/2011 10:37 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Other Works
* You can use the Creative Commons Attribution License
(Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5).
We only accept work under this license that is non
On 6/1/2011 11:07 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 22:52, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
What am I missing here?
According to the Incubation Policy [1]:
A Sponsor SHALL be either:
* the Board of the Apache Software Foundation;
* a Top Level Project (TLP) within the
On 6/2/2011 11:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
We know the *precise* list of files that we have rights to. They are
explicitly specified in the software grant recorded by the Secretary.
For all other files not listed: we have no special rights. Those files
would be under their original license,
On 6/2/2011 11:07 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
do know about it, people
101 - 200 of 652 matches
Mail list logo
