: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 7:17 PM
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg
Stein gst...@gmail.com
wrote:
As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1
was a veto. If the
IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 14:11, Kalle Korhonen kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
wrote:
it ;)
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 9/9/10, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
From: James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
Subject: Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 7:17 PM
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg
Stein gst
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote:
That vote is majority rules, so the IPMC could in effect overrule the
project - the preference/opinion had already previously been
gathered. In any case, I was using that instance to ask the broader
question of why we
Subject: Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 10:53 AM
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Tim
Williams william...@gmail.com
wrote:
That vote is majority rules, so the IPMC could in
effect overrule the
project - the preference
On 9/10/10 8:18 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
another small comment: if folks only like to get an opinion, then don't call
a [VOTE] but instead a [DISCUSS] opinion poll.
Because a vote is a vote is a vote...
LieGrue,
strub
To be clear, we where asking for a [VOTE] and not a [DISCUSS] - we
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
To be clear, we where asking for a [VOTE] and not a [DISCUSS] - we
wanted the vote to ratify our own vote on the subject. There was already
a long discussion on general and the connectors mailing list - tons of
I'm watching the renaming vote thread and I find it odd that folks
are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and
the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything
other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC
should only be
name=trademark
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm watching the renaming vote thread and I find it odd that folks
are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and
the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:32 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
name=trademark
Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to
Presumably, the PMC's job is to be the eyes and ears of the Board, so if
project is doing something wrong, the PMC should let it know. In this case,
the project specifically is asking for guidance from the PMC as to whether the
name change is acceptable to the PMC and thus to the ASF, assuming
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to
think through
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then
fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside
the podling to -1 that
Not only did we ask, we've asked more than once.
We're going that extra mile to call a vote to resolve this issue
specifically because there seems to be a wide range of opinion as to whether
the name is acceptable to the incubator, and by implication, the board.
It's quite clear that there's also
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then
fine. Sounds
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 14:11, Kalle Korhonen kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
wrote:
I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 was a veto. If the
IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like this. If you're
only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then sure...
definitely no problems
17 matches
Mail list logo
