On 6/2/2011 7:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
This is purely my own thoughts, and there's no doubt room for improvement
although I have run it past a few wise friends before posting it. But I
suggest that without this clear demarcation of new-project and
business-as-usual-project it will be
On 6/1/2011 11:33 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
That would be great. There is also another project (or set of projects)
that IBM and Sun/Oracle have worked on over the past few years, called the
:ODF Toolkit. For example, this component was just released today:
On 6/1/2011 12:48 PM, Nick Burch wrote:
This would possibly warrant a seperate discussion though, especially if the
codebase were
to be destined for POI rather than a new TLP.
And note, this is a decision that can be made *during* incubation,
with POI folks participating on the incubating
On 6/1/2011 1:16 PM, dsh wrote:
To me the proof point whether this proposal will be successful or not
is whether Linux distributions having already dropped support for
OpenOffice and switched to LibreOffice instead would be willing to
reverse that decision and move back to OpenOffice again now
On 3/12/2011 4:21 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
I am concerned that none of the proposed mentors were Incubator PMC
members at the time of the proposal. I believe Alan Gates is now joining
the Incubator PMC, which is great.
On 2/25/2011 4:25 AM, Troy Howard wrote:
My point was:
Bill made a statement, which though rather neutral and ambiguous,
seemed to indicate that he (or perhaps a silent mass of others) did
not think the proposal was such a good idea, due to the risks
associated with a significant amount of
On 2/15/2011 5:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:54 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/12/2011 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name
wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote on Sat, Feb 05, 2011
On 2/12/2011 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name
wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote on Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 22:32:24 -0500:
On 2/5/11 4:16 PM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Bertrand,
I agree. The good thing about a vibrant community is
On 1/31/2011 11:22 AM, Aida Rivas wrote:
Hello
Our Open64.net steering committee is exploring the idea of submission as an
Apache Incubator Project, and one of the concerns is the Apache 2.0 license
status regarding whether or not it's compatible with GPL
since Open64 is currently using GPL
Which would appear to come from the UK, if that gives anyone a better
clue.
On 10/28/2010 10:15 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Sorry for the noise. A bit more information:
Caller-ID: 441962815000
On Oct 28, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi,
We received an empty two page fax
On 10/7/2010 11:40 AM, Nick Burch wrote:
Hi All
Does anyone happen to know of some pre-existing release guidelines for python
or php
libraries, either in an apache TLP or a podling? For Chemistry we've got the
docs sorted
for maven-based releases of the java codeline, and now we're
On 9/25/2010 8:42 PM, Rafal Rusin wrote:
This is good question. As I understand procedure for nominating
committers for podlings, blind request to hise-private needs to be
sent and then mentors decide during voting. Existing committers don't
play role here. That's why we haven't started any
On 9/27/2010 2:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
But you're right that those votes have no formal value.
I would disagree, if there were later discussion by the graduated project
(now consisting mostly of former PPMC folks), as a PMC chair I'd look back
at the decision by the committee
On 9/10/2010 11:25 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
For reference:
* Subversion created its dev list in April 2000.
* The user list was created in July 2003. 238 messages were posted that
month.
As you can see, we waited a
On 7/1/2010 11:19 AM, ant elder wrote:
I've been suggesting it would be simpler for Chukwa to go directly to
TLP but if thats not going to happen then you have my support to
incubate if thats what they really want to do, and I agree a new vote
might making things clearer. It seems a shame to
On 6/25/2010 3:55 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 21:21, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote:
Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead
and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this
time.
If the proposers want
On 6/25/2010 12:40 PM, Chris Douglas wrote:
But the Incubator doesn't just say yes/no. We can refer this back to Hadoop
proposing this as a TLP, and even offer the list of mentors as observers, or
members of the initial PMC.
The Hadoop PMC is wholly unqualified to manage Chukwa. It voted
On 6/23/2010 8:12 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa
website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a
TLP and if they have to use the incubator
On 6/22/2010 2:42 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 6/21/2010 1:31 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited
On 6/21/2010 1:31 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited)
impression, pretty successful. What's the rationale for going the
Incubator route rather than putting up a Board TLP
On 6/17/2010 9:06 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
It is possible to run an incubator.staging.apache.org, syncing off a
branch, and the live site off
On 6/17/2010 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/17/2010 9:06 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
It is possible to run
On 4/9/2010 6:54 PM, Bryan Call wrote:
Incubation status:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/trafficserver.html
Please cast your vote:
[X] +1 to recommend Traffic Server's graduation
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 3/15/2010 6:22 PM, Nóirín Shirley for the ApacheCon 2010 Planning Team wrote:
If you'd like your project to be featured in the main conference
tracks, please discuss it with your project community. A schedule is
not needed at this time, but you have a coherent vision for a one day
(6
On 2/4/2010 11:24 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
In that case, +0 from me. We gain the elimination of the p.a.o bit but
lose the benefit of the delay, so it's basically a wash, as far as I'm
concerned.
After several years of watching incubator site commits, I don't see this
is a serious problem.
+1
On 2/3/2010 1:57 AM, Gav... wrote:
This system is not applied to most TLPs, though they can request it.
And I'm betting that every single project that graduates will make that
request rather than learn the old cumbersome way.
++1 :)
Doug Cutting wrote:
Branko Čibej wrote:
So I'm not too clear on what your objections are.
* Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the
project Web pages?
I object to posting these outside of a clearly-marked developer portion
of the project's web site.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
steps) and a publication. Posts like this might attempt to muddy the
distinction, so
Greg Stein wrote:
If you want to review *bits* rather than *release process*, then you
can take a look at trunk/ or the nightlies that we'll soon produce. If
you want release process *and* Apache-branding, then the svn community
is not prepared to provide that, nor do I think it necessary
Greg Stein wrote:
We're not sure what we'd like to do about website migration right now.
Discussion is still occurring in the community.
The bottom line is that we are in sync in terms of what aught to move into
ASF and have 'formal recognition' ASAP. E.g. a mailing list is trivial,
svn is
Greg Stein wrote:
Sponsors
* Champion: Greg Stein
Cool
* Nominated Mentors: Justin Erenkrantz, Greg Stein, Sander Striker, Daniel
Rall
Once again, caution against committers == mentors (== 'project leads').
It puts certain committers above others, an inequitable situation.
If the PPMC
Greg Stein wrote:
The Subversion project would like to join the Apache Software
Foundation to remove the overhead of having to run its own
corporation. The Subversion project is already run quite like an
Apache project, and already counts a number of ASF Members amongst
its committers.
Greg Stein wrote:
The Apache Incubator is about EDUCATION. It is about TEACHING podlings
how to work here at Apache.
I'm a little confused. I'm reading a really long rant here, but I expect
if you look at what nearly all mentors do in their respective podlings,
this is exactly what they
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com
wrote:
To be clear, it's on the mentors to decide what is applicable and
necessary for graduation - not the
Joe Schaefer wrote:
From: Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com
Let me put it another way: if the IPMC accepts a proposal with one
mentor, then I'm fine with that one mentor acting on behalf of the
IPMC without the need to constantly go back to the IPMC for approval.
-- justin
For
Greg Stein wrote:
Yup. And I'll note that that limbo you describe has been an issue
with the Board for a long while now. That is why the Board instructed
the IPMC to request all podlings to list two items in their reports:
1) when did you arrive?
2) what is left?
Specifically to focus
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Would a waiver be possible for Diversity (large project dominated by 1
or 2 vendors)? For the minimum required binding votes (small
communities of 2 committers)?
Such things have been requested, and granted in the past, based on the
demonstrated ability of the project
Leo Simons wrote:
Here's what I understand:
1) Apache rule: all apache releases must be made by PMCs
2) Apache rule: a release needs at least 3 binding +1s and more +1s than -1s
3) from #1 and #2 it follows that all incubator releases must be made
by the incubator PMC
If you see a way
Mark Phippard wrote:
I gave counsel to the Eclipse Foundation and explained that they could
provide a fully functioning JavaHL library to users with only EPL
compatible code. Basically, you just need to build without Neon, BDB
and libintl support. Of the three, the only thing an Eclipse
Mark Phippard wrote:
As an SVN committer, I can say that this is not something that is of
concern to me (and I dare say I probably speak for all or at least
most of the other committers when I say that).
Thanks for that reassurance...
Finally, I will also add that we have had our SVN Corp
Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Quite frankly, all svncorp releases could, with reasonable documentation
[read: mailing list archives, CLA's and code grant] be licensed as ASF
releases under the AL 2.0, irrespective
Greg Stein wrote:
The IPMC is in charge of its operation. It can redefine the rules of
releases as it pleases. The three +1 rule was developed to show that
the PMC is in charge of the release, and is therefore legally liable
for it. The IPMC can do whatever it likes around releases, as long
Branko Čibej wrote:
Wait a minute. Are you implying that the project *should* release
binaries? Wouldn't such a requirement apply to, say, APR, to keep this
close to home?
s/should/may/
Greg pointed out I make win32 binaries and these are not mandated, I do so
only because I trusted that
Mark Phippard wrote:
I do not believe the project wants to be in the business of providing
binaries and we have an existing ecosystem of people that are
providing them successfully.
As long as non-committer artifacts aren't hosted here, that is no trouble.
If nobody on SVN wants to create
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 10:08:40 AM
Subject: Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was:
[PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)
Greg wrote
Greg Stein wrote:
The Subversion podling would like a waiver of the requirement to make
a release before graduation.
As we understand this requirement, it is present in order to
demonstrate to the podling how releases are made at the ASF.
Packaging, licensing, signing, placement into the
Greg Stein wrote:
I have no idea why the term Board even comes up in your response.
What's that got to do with my problems with the IPMC attempting to
impose make-work on the svn podling?
Because when you post to a broad-list such as general@, you are
communicating to all incubating podlings
Bob Schellink wrote:
I would like to start a vote to recommend the graduation of Apache Click
as a Top Level Project to the Board.
Please cast your vote:
[X] +1 to recommend Click's graduation
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
George Aroush wrote:
[X] +1 Graduate Lucene.Net as a sub-project under Apache Lucene.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Ted Leung wrote:
On Aug 19, 2009, at 10:01 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I have a lot of problems with saying
In the meantime, we have dozens of projects who are here to learn the
*right* way to build code and communities
when we can't even agree / document what that *right* way
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
+1
Sorry I had been away on vacation with very limited connectivity.
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Noah Slater wrote:
I checked the incubation rules, but couldn't find any mention of this rule.
Our
hopes were that we could start from scratch as a podling, and grow the code
along with the community. Is this going to be possible?
It's not mentioned because there is no such rule. Draw up
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 18:16 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Thorsten
Scherlerthorsten.scherler@juntadeandalucia.es wrote:
How many committers are in the project? As understand from the thread 2
coding committers but how many other
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Thorsten
Scherlerthorsten.scherler@juntadeandalucia.es wrote:
How many committers are in the project? As understand from the thread 2
coding committers but how many other committers?
5 committers and PPMC Members in total, not
David Crossley wrote:
I am very disappointed that no podlings took up your suggestion.
I was too. It was answered by the status scoreboard, but that is not
help to graduate, only a bunch of disassociated data. I don't disapprove
of a status grid, but it doesn't replace active management.
If
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Jukka Zittingjukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Sling explicitly waited until there were active committers from three
independent backgrounds until asking for graduation.
At the end of the day it's the people who write the code that decide
Craig L Russell wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
That doesn't seem right either. I think members should still be able
to access it read-only.
Fair enough. I just don't think it should be readable by the public.
But members? Why not just authenticated committers?
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Would this be moved to the attic?
Probably not. The Attic is the collection of all released Apache
Projects. Podlings != Projects, and were never accepted as projects.
Do we want to charge the Attic with such additional burdens of then
completing all IP clearances that
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
How is incubator PMC to evaluate this question?
Apparently the submitters are cool with it, or it would not be on their
proposal :)
Just
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
How is incubator PMC to evaluate this question?
Apparently the submitters are cool with it, or it would not be on their
proposal :)
The one thing that might be concerning is that most people will use a
query such as;
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to perform IP clearance on the Sigil project to Felix.
The contributed archive contains some embedded JAR files, one of which
is covered by AGPL, which is a modified version of GPL. I am told by
Paremus (the contributors) that only two minor
Jim Jagielski wrote:
+1 (binding) on the singular change of dropping Mladen Turk and Nick Kew
as Mentors since that makes it 5 mentors, which is problematic (3 seems
to be the max).
Otherwise -1 (binding)
Guys... mentorship is not about technical excellence, it's about bringing
together a
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Honestly, Niclas,
but if you and possibly others that strict, then we should change the
official policy. I do not doubt the reasons you give, but such a
statement seems difficult to me, if the official policy clearly
demands it, but insisting on more than the policy
sebb wrote:
PANEKANA - apparently means security in Hawaiian.
No hits in TESS.
Google shows no hits relating to commercial enterprises.
I like the alliteration... a pa che pan e kan a
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Maarten Bosteels wrote:
Hi Les,
Is there an entry in TESS that shows us the potential naming conflict ?
It could help us understand which names are good candidates.
I don't quite understand the problem (IANAL).
My apologies if this has all been discussed before.
As far as I understand,
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 21:53, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Apache Kleenex because the Kleenex registration refers to a paper
product, not a software product.
Gasp! Don't let the Kleenex folks hear that there product was not soft ware!
And Bernd
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Perhaps a better solution is an incubator sandbox for code
Or just a directory called dormant into which to do an svn move.
+1 - Simple Solution.
+1; create a category on the Incubating
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
I know that we usually try to strongly encourage companies not to use
apache as dumping ground but I wonder sometimes whether it might be
useful to accept more contributions of proof-of-concept code
especially from academia. It's often easier to start from some
At Wed's ASF Board meeting, the board took up the issue of whether
the attic project's charter is appropriate for incubating code that
has not yet graduated into a project.
The conclusion was no; the attic is chartered to handle the actual
projects of the foundation (including incubator
Bob Schellink wrote:
Will Glass-Husain wrote:
+1
Quick question, does the PMC votes from previous release attempts (the
first and second try) count towards this cut? In other words does Andrus
and Kevan's votes from the previous attempt count?
Each package must be evaluated on it's own
Torsten Curdt wrote:
Isn't the champion expected to be the ubermentor anyway? Or to
rephrase this: does the vote of the champion not count? ... or can one
person be champion and mentor?
Yes and should be called out as both.
BTW: Just realized I am not members of the Incubator PMC. Wasn't
Ian Holsman wrote:
I'll be a mentor. do we need 2 or 3?
That would be nice, yes.
3 mentors == 3 binding votes.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Darren Hague wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Are we ready for the next steps of accepting ESME into the Incubator?
The Apache Incubator general mailing list seems to have been quiet since
Saturday 21st November, so I'm not sure if there's a problem with the
mailserver somewhere or if people are just
Craig L Russell wrote:
My only concern is that from the description, the project appears to be
run in real time, with decisions made through collaborative
decision-making on the mailing list, through daily scrum calls, via
Twitter and using open discussion on ESME itself.
Good points. If
David Crossley wrote:
The Clutch table assists with a status summary.
It is also helpful when it comes to reviewing, as the
links in each cell go directly to each podling's
various resources.
e.g. http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html#empire-db
That's sweet - embarrassed I didn't know it
Paul Fremantle wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:49 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just two concerns...
Is it anticipated this will graduate into the WS TLP? If so, has WS voted
to sponsor the project into incubation?
We would like to leave this open during the initial
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...The full proposal is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal..
That says future contributions could depend on proprietary systems
such as Microsoft .Net or commercial
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
4. running continuous integration on shore may require licenses. it's
important that contributors understand this and don't just start
diving in. it may be better to start off shore.
As a US based Deleware 501(c)3 that wouldn't protect us.
As far as continuous
Garrett Rooney wrote:
The discussion included determining the list of people to put on the
final PMC list. The actual list of Abdera committers was larger, but
many of them had not participated in the project in some time or at
all, or had explicitly left the project. Since I didn't want
Just two concerns...
The project already uses core libraries from the Apache WS project
including Apache Axis2/Java, Rampart and Sandesha2. In addition, the PHP,
Perl, and Python versions use the Apache Axis2/C libraries. We hope to
develop versions that utilize at least the Apache CXF
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
I'm presuming there was not a dev@ vote yet by the Abdera community itself?
If not, could you please call that vote ASAP in parallel with the general@
vote? Monday evening is not to late to put this on the board
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
I'm presuming there was not a dev@ vote yet by the Abdera community itself?
If not, could you please call that vote ASAP in parallel with the general@
vote? Monday evening is not to late
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Ook So, what you are saying is that we now asking the
committers to become legally affluent?
No, only to become aware of the fact that what they do is owned by
their employer, or that it is not.
In most cases in CA US for example, what you do on your time in
the
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:45 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about a brand new idea?
Lay down a Milestone-style chart of what it takes to operate as an ASF
project. Demonstrate community of meritocracy, add committers or ppmc
members based
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are maven plugins that can validate the checksums of 3rd party
dependencies.
Uhhh... Call me stupid, but how can checksum solve anything other than
assuring that the download worked??
Sonal Goyal wrote:
I am an independent consultant interested in mentoring this project. A
few things are not clear to me:
1. The Apache site http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
states that a working codebase is essential for incubation. How do we
start if we are at the
Steve Poole wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Sonal Goyal wrote:
2. Is it necessary for a mentor to be an Apache member or part of the
Incubator PMC? How do I join otherwise ?
There might be a disconnect here in the word Mentor. Mentorship here is
strictly talking about organizing
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Drop any pretense that the incubator has a say
over the already-done code releases, and we can seriously start the real
discussion, which would have been motivating projects to graduate
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:45 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Color me confused again, but during setup and formation of the Incubator,
a podling had to graduate before doing a release. It was rather well
established before this rule was modified
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jukka Zitting wrote:
Does the ASF endorse these releases, and what does that endorsement mean?
yes...
You are talking about a legal licensing matter, whereas discussion during the
setup and formation of the Incubator was quite
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
7 Binding +1's and 2 non-binding.
Binding votes were:
Alan Cabrera
Bertrand Delacretaz
Matt Hogstrom
Kevan Miller
Matthieu Riou
Craig Russell
Henning Schmiedehausen
Can the PMC ACK this result and we'll start the next step of the process?
Nack nack nack, no
James Carman wrote:
Do I just send a request to the ASF board?
Nope, the ASF board doesn't make committee choices for any PMC. Just let
the Incubator PMC know you are interested (and since you posted to general@
you've done that already :)
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Because we (Apache) control the distribution channel?
Nope. We control several distribution channels; offhand...
www.apache.org/dist/{tlp}/
- ASF-wide policies (TLP 3x +1, more +1 than -1)
www.apache.org/dist/incubator/podling/
- Incubator policies (+
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Right, that's why my VOTE was the way it was. Please check my VOTE :)
Didn't argue with your vote; argued with your statement/query :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
Jason van Zyl wrote:
maven repository
- Maven TLP (now that ASF has absorbed Maven server)
The ASF has not absorbed the Maven server.
Color me confused for having approved colocation expenses some
2 meetings back. This did not happen or will not happen?
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
And since we are paying for it...who (maven pmc?) exactly is tasked
with taking care of it?
As Jason (and Paul in a side channel) confirm, ASF is not paying for
it at this point. That was my confusion based on an earlier board
resolution.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Exactly why in previous discussions i already asked...Can the maven
folks provide another way to do this? (not showing disclaimers
necessarily, something that the user has to do one time works too.
Example: apt-get and keys)
WHY do you keep conflating the idea of
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Fine...Please state your *specific* use case scenario that is
problematic right now
The problem set is that this thread now exceeds 500 posts in four
years, with only one technically appropriate conclusion.
Bill
Matthieu Riou wrote:
I've also looked at the mentors votes, those who are basically running this
place. I'm a small player but Craig mentors 6 poddlings, Jim, Henning and
Jukka 4 and Doug 3. I'm not saying their votes count more than others, just
that when those people disagree, we should
It's interestingly ironic that the ASF has invested /substantial/
resources to counter a license grant that would require additional
terms and conditions on any release of ASF software (e.g. Harmony,
with respect to Sun's TCK terms and conditions), while many of the
very same people who are
201 - 300 of 652 matches
Mail list logo
