Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> Please vote +1 to accept, or -1 with reasons to not accept as a podling.
+1
(of course no justification is required for a -1, since such votes cannot
be vetoed. Not to say that justifications aren't nice to have :)
-
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 wa
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 continuou
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 c
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 company that a committer work for must acknowledge that the employee(s)
> in question are allowed to work on Apache projects.
>
> In this case, that is Cisco, and we have no CCLA at all on file from Cisco.
This is incorrect (unless you are speaking of you).
CCLA's are a convenience for th
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 Mento
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 th
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 work
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
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
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
>> es
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 di
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 n
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:
> 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
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
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.
-
Strike one
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> Because we ("Apache") control the distribution channel?
>
> Nope. We control several distribution channels; offhand...
>
> www.apache.org/dist/{tlp}/
> - ASF-wide po
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:
> 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,
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 (+
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 investe
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 shoul
Paul Querna wrote:
>
> Open an infrastructure JIRA ticket and I'll figure out getting https://
> on www.apache.org sooner or later.
Good thought. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1737
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
David Crossley wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> I liked the way you put the question; it's not up to incubator project to
>> set the rules for Maven. If the maven PMC decides that these incubator
>> releases don't belong in the primar
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Of which we have two; released, or not released, and that's a product
>> of oversight and a [VOTE]. There are no magical in-betweens.
>
> As evidenced by this vote this is hardly the consensus. See comments
> like "incubating releases to be treated as full Apache releases"
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
> The vote ends with the following 15 +1, 12 -1, and one 0 binding votes.
>
> This is a slight majority (of binding votes) for accepting the
> proposed change, but given the clear lack of consensus and the
> concerns voiced about that, I unfortunately need to conclude that
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
> I extended the vote "for another week", which IMHO clearly puts the
> endpoint to this morning. As such, I will be closing the vote in a few
> hours.
:)
Sounds great
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PRO
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> So you assume that that www.apache.org can not be hacked? What if a
> signing key *IS* in KEYS but not signed by anyone (because the developer
> has never attended an Apache key signing event)?
No, I answered your question.
W.r.t. www.apache.org/dist/{tlp}/KEYS, we
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> How do you validate that the pub key presented to you is genuine?
Every project worth it's salt has a www.apache.org/dist/{tlp}/KEYS
file which contain that project's contributors signatures, countersigned
or not. Ideally, they are extensively countersigned. B
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Please vote on accepting or rejecting this policy change! This
> majority vote is open for a week and only votes from the Incubator PMC
> members are binding.
Just as a point of reference, extending a vote for a given period of time
is a good thing to accommodate all input.
Doug Cutting wrote:
>
> +1 All releases by ASF PMC's should be equal. If the Incubator PMC
> isn't confident of a release then it shouldn't release it. The release
> process should not just check legal concerns, but also the quality of
> the code and its community. A responsible PMC should not
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Agreed. I never argued against this. But I fail to see the point?
Are you saying initial trust is hard to secure? I totally agree on
that point. You have any solutions?
Yes. You sign your package locally, never on the remote system. The ASF
hardware must never have y
Hiram, I wish you would desist already from debating positions that you
can't defend...
Hiram Chirino wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 18/09/2008, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So the responsibility is still on us, the upstream distributor,
Hiram Chirino wrote:
So the responsibility is still on us, the upstream distributor, to
verify the the checksums we list in our source distro are correct.
But at least by doing this, down stream users of our source distros
can rest assured that the dependencies that they are using are the
correc
Gilles Scokart wrote:
2008/9/15 William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Brett Porter wrote:
For the releases to be identified as from the incubator, they'll need to
be
signed solely by "the incubator". Did you want to elaborate on how you
anticipated that set up working?
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Since you are stating facts. Let's make it clear that when someone
download the artifacts, there's a good chance that you will see the
disclaimers. With maven, we don't. That's the hiccup that caused the
policy in place right now and the bruising battle now being fought i
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 06:57 -0400, Daniel Kulp wrote:
I voted +1, but I personally think the vote is kind of irrelevant.
Thus:
If the central maven repository maintainers (Maven PMC) decide to put
incubator artifacts into their repository without a click thr
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The current tally is extremely close (9 +1 vs. 8 -1 binding)
I don't want to close an issue with such a small margin.
I suggest that we should not change policy on anything like this lack of
concensus. I do, however, suggest that pressure be put on Maven to enforce
signi
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
The problem with a release injected in maven is that it will be there
forever. If a release has some problems (IP issues, etc), you can't
remove it from maven, as some projects might depend on it, and the users
will immediately carpet bomb the maven ML to get the releas
Thomas Fischer wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Rainer D�bele wrote:
Since we built the 2.0.3 / 1.0.3 release we have made some improvemets
and bugfixes. I suggest skipping these releases and continuing with
the 2.0.4 and 1.0.4 release.
Hm, the 2.0.3 release is not released yet. You can still cal
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just so everyone understands this in context, the objection above is moot
because...
No, it's not. Anything that creates an impetus for a podling to get
out of the Incubator
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
-1
I believe that allowing incubating releases to be treated as full Apache
releases diminishes the Apache brand and makes incubation disclaimers moot.
With Maven, it
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
I seek your feedback regarding a discussion that we currently have on
the labs ml [2]. I am the PI of the labs project droids and I like to
move out of the labs and create a ASF subproject (either HC or Lucene,
still to define).
The labs bylaws [1] state:
"...
Lab Lifec
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Scott Comer wrote:
the important thing right now is, i think, that searching now for etch
doesn't not reveal anything which is obviously competing technology
True, but were the debian community to make "a federal case" of the issue, I
don't know that the name would be
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 07 August 2008 10:50:10 Yonik Seeley wrote:
"The Sponsor shall assign a Mentor, who shall be granted membership of
the Incubator PMC for the duration of the incubation process."
That's al
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 06 August 2008 04:05:04 Craig L Russell wrote:
I don't think the names PicaGalley and Picasa are similar at all.
Pica is pronounced with a long "i" and stress on the "i". Picasa has a
short "i" and stress on the first "a". So to me they don't even share
"pica"
Craig L Russell wrote:
It takes at least a week for an incubating release to get out because in
addition to getting everything right the first time, you need a 3 day
vote in the project and a 3 day vote in the incubator.
Bullshit
It takes 3 days. You need 3 binding PMC votes from the Incub
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Follow-on releases can similarly be built from code checked into the
Apache repository. They just cannot be called "Apache any
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Some things to consider in this discussion:
- The 0.9.0 release cannot be performed off of the copy in ASF
- The 0.9.0 or earlier releases cannot be suppo
Michael Stroucken wrote:
I have not been assigned to any part of this project as an employee of the
university, and I am participating out of personal interest. I believe the
project can improve services not just at our data centers, but at data centers
in general.
[...]
Finally, as for the o
Doug Cutting wrote:
There's no conspiracy here to steal Apacheness. Rather, Yahoo!, Intel
and CMU would like to collaborate on open source software. Intel and
CMU have a prototype, and Yahoo! is interested in helping to develop
this further. All three believe that other parties will also b
Doug Cutting wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
With respect to "Initially, we plan to start with one committer each from
Carnegie Mellon and Intel Research, with a Yahoo committer to be
determined
later", that's awkwardly phrased. It appears to imply a corporate
representative doing commits for "
Malcolm Edgar wrote:
I do take the point that there are no "project leads" in ASF and if
Click were to go throught the incubator process and become a fully
fledged ASF project that this would change. The project would follow
the Apache mediocrity rules. I genuinely belive that this would be a
go
I'm forced to vote -1 for the following section, the rest reads fine, and
I think my concerns can be quickly addressed by the proposers;
== Meritocracy ==
Click was developed by Malcolm Edgar in 2003 publicly released in March
2005. Since then there have been contributions from a number of
deve
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, the Maven repository situation has little to do with the need for
an Incubator.
Obviously you choose to pick out everying Ron's writing about the
flaws in Maven / the Maven repository wh
Angela Cymbalak wrote:
I think that I am in a unique position to comment on this question. I
am sure there are a lot of legal things and the Maven repository that
can be pointed to as reasons why not to have an Incubator but I have
been very pleased with the fact that Apache *does* have the
Craig L Russell wrote:
On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Apache isn't about 'community over code'. The code is just as
important - if not more so. For Incubator releases, the releases
aren't held to the same legal standar
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
So can we figure out another way to make the end user make a conscious
decision?
I doubt we will get much help from the maven team to support this use
case. They would rather get the central repo and get it done! What
bugs me is that in this whole discussion, no one even
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
we should remember and capture that Roy raised valid points about
having the *vote* be public, albeit after private discussion. It
seemed that the idea was to discuss it in private, and only vote
in public if it was
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
we should remember and capture that Roy raised valid points about having the
*vote* be public, albeit after private discussion. It seemed that the idea was
to discuss it in private, and only vote in public if it was clear that the vote
would go smoothly.
Offhand I do
Craig L Russell wrote:
Would it be worthwhile to capture this discussion in a patch to the
offending paragraph?
We can capture both sentiments...
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I have one small problem, and was otherwise +1 on the final
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
have been raised.
Craig, could you commit your patch so that we can close this issue?
Did anyone actually count the vote? I have no problem with Craig's patch, but
did
Edward J. Yoon wrote:
Hello IPMC,
The employee list of NHN's CCLA contains only two (Edward J. Yoon,
Donguk Choi) except Suh and Joosun. Then, What happen by a lack of not
having everyone on the CCLA?
Can't we release the hama? or Can't we open the TLP vote?
IIUC, Suh and Joosun from your com
Daniel Kulp wrote:
Umm... why "no binding -1 votes"? I thought adding a committer wasn't
a vetoable thing, just code modifications. This should be a majority
approval vote thing. (with it linked to
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval for
details)
A -1 should
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Gilles Scokart wrote:
Noel J. Bergman:
Implement that, and we're fine. We will
require Incubator artifacts to be signed by a designated key available
to
the PMC, and once a user has acknowledged that they accept such
Incubator
signed artifacts, maven can do what it
ant elder wrote:
After 29 months in the incubator, 19 releases, 25 new committers, and
tons of emails the Apache Tuscany community (with support from our
mentors) again feels that we are ready to graduate to an official top
level project at Apache as indicated by the community vote recorded
at: h
Upayavira wrote:
Also, has the software grant process yet been started?
Not sure. From later questions in the thread it seems that a CCLA is
enough?
No - on a completed code base, the Software Grant is necessary, see
my earlier comments.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:57 PM, David Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also have not received an answer to my question about SVN. When
existing projects are moved into Apache, is their full VCS history
normally imported, or just the latest version. If the former
David Reiss wrote:
We also need CCLAs from Powerset, imeem, Amie Street, and Evernote. Is
there a way to check whether these have been received?
This entirely depends on the contributor. It's up to each iCLA signer to
determine if they have the legal authority to bind their contributions to
I'm sorry - I had mixed up Noel's comments with Sam (which is not an easy
thing to do once you know them both ;-)
Please don't worry about plugging legal into the loop until you are done.
Then just send a notice to legal-discuss@ with a link to the page. It's
really that simple, they trust "us"
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
One more;
Determine www.a.o/licenses/exports implications
for notifications.
No. That is not part of IP clearance, sorry, and I will not repeat all
of the process associated with being a chair within something as trivial
as a secretarial function (connecting t
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > I've wasted too much time today on the
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template
that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about
decisions that the Incubator is not responsible for making.
The required IP clearance questions should be:
Date:
Identify the Contribution
On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading
the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to focus
on narrower concepts with alternative names.
1. the incubator should be concerned about the comp
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
i've been a passive subscriber to the tuscany list for quite a while
now and to me, from the lists, it feels like an open community
It's been a while since we discussed this.
I'm very curious where Tuscany stands - in terms of viably graduating
at this point. The
If your project's NEW technology needs exposure, if you are in
search of users for these new features or to recruit more committers
to a new code base, and you are in Amsterdam for ApacheCon/EU, this
last reminder message is for you. We will close the program and
print the final schedule on Tuesd
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Mar 31, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Please note the *Releases may not be vetoed.* part.
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Thanks. My bad. I should have not used to word, veto.
With a caviat that a true licensing issue would be enou
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:15 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1: there should be NOTICE and LICENSE files at the top level in SVN.
-1: SVN and the source archive don't agree; there are files and
directories in each that are not in the other.
Could you please reco
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On 3/28/08, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"The PRIOR rules said you place/retain copyright notices on each file.
The NEW policy says you can skip that, move them into a NOTICE. The policy
*never* granted you the right to remove them alt
Niall Pemberton wrote:
I assume you mean the following thread:
http://apache.markmail.org/message/jangmpbssvvd73az
Although from memory I don't remember it being conclusive.
Is any thread on general@ really ever concluded, unless someone offers
up a [vote] ;-?
But this statement stands;
"Th
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On 3/27/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This release is tagged at:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cxf/tags/cxf-2.0.5-incubator/
-1: there should be NOTICE and LICENSE files at the top level in SVN.
According to my knowledge there is no policy th
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Thanks for the input -- we will be back :-)
At this point we have decided to abandon the vote
Carl, I do hope that the community is taking this in a positive manner. I
sincerely believe that the majority of us are actually very pleased with the
QPi
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
No, committers *don't* have binding votes:
Binding Votes
Who is permitted to vote is, to some extent, a community-specific
thing. However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding
votes, and all others are either discouraged from voting (to keep the
noise dow
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Mar 7, 2008, at 11:07 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 07 March 2008 16:39, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So the CCLA exists for those who's employment agreements would otherwise
cause them to violate their claims made via their CLA contract.
Uhhh So, a
Scott Deboy wrote:
Does ASF need proof that a transfer of intellectual property ownership
occurred?
In your CLA - you attest that you have that right. If you don't - it's
on you to remedy it. The ASF doesn't broker relationships between
developers and their employers, clients, or spouses :)
Carl Trieloff wrote:
This would be Qpid's month to report -- Should we create one, or just
continue the graduation thread and
if we pass the vote, take the resolution to the board, if the vote does
not pass report next month?
Please report, that report will be a good backgrounder for the boa
Carl Trieloff wrote:
...Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software related to the Apache Qpid Messaging
implementations,...
Can you rework this; it's simply too recursive. Deconstruct Qpid
Messaging back to it's purpose/definition. Thanks :)
--
Santiago Gala wrote:
I'd say that if a project wants to have a distributed scm and makes a
reasonable case of the reasons, they would ask for it to infrastructure.
If infrastructure denies it and the project does not accept the
reasoning or how it is exposed, we have a conflict. If there is a
con
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
No, there was no vote and is not vote, nor is there any choice.
Subversion is one of the few things that the Board has mandated,
imposed on all projects. Period. Pretty much end of discussion.
I would assume though that if there is enough interest among the
community,
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 02:35, Craig L Russell wrote:
The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted this
privilege based on their merit, not just by updating a wiki page
saying that they're interested.
Actually, if/where this is the case, it is not p
Craig L Russell wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:59 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
This is almost the exact same issue with a podling; if a user never actually
participates, as the project graduates should they remain a committer?
The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 04 February 2008 04:11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but
equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned
inactive committers from the graudation list.
Personally, I don't see a diff
Although all of the committers saw this invite, and we really hate to
spam folks, we know there are many contributors-not-yet-committers in
the incubator who might be interested in promoting your favorite podling,
so we are also reaching out to you all!
We hope you already are considering attendi
Roland Weber wrote:
I think that is a bit oversimplified. IBM has strict rules about
open source participation. It is either "on private time", such
as my involvement at Apache. Then the person is acting as an
individual. Or it is "on company time". Then the person is doing
what he or she is paid
Filip's point - and I tend to agree, is that we have quite a few
committers in many podling ideas who never translate into actual
contributors. Maybe the idea excited them, but other things caught
their attention. Maybe they were an original contributor to the
incoming codebase, but over the cou
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Matt,
I don't see a conflict for incubating projects when members assume
multiple roles, including Champion, Mentor, and Committer. If a Champion
is not a Mentor or Committer, then it's pure altruism.
There's only one conflict, and the 'voting' thread hints at this.
Erik Abele wrote:
On 31.01.2008, at 13:26, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
and only the PPMC member votes are binding.
The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member votes
are binding.
But somehow I like the fact that i
Yoav Shapira wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 2:24 AM, Mark Slee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What we'd really
like to set up here is a system where there are different people with
committer priveleges to different parts of the project.
I'm not a huge fan of this, but I love the rest of the proposal, so +
301 - 400 of 740 matches
Mail list logo
