east not copy any private list...
>
> That's my favorite way by far, send the actual message to a single
> list and if needed send *pointers* to that message to other lists.
>
> Like "FYI, a VOTE about xyz is going on on d...@foobarinator.apache.org".
>
Yep, and that mat
nd *pointers* to that message to other lists.
Like "FYI, a VOTE about xyz is going on on d...@foobarinator.apache.org".
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional comma
Ok, I see the concern. My thinking was that this is a vote on a public list
according to the instructions here:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#subproject
<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#subproject>
and there is no content coming from a privat
to make sure that everyone on those lists saw the thread as the
> people on those lists participated in the vote process. Perhaps I should
> have added them bcc instead.
>
My concern is from this page:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html
Specifically: "Be sure not to take ema
> On 28 Jun 2017, at 17:25, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I have no idea why this is copying both public and private lists.
>
I wanted to make sure that everyone on those lists saw the thread as the people
on those lists participated in the vote process
Hi Robert,
On Jun 18, 2007, at 5:29 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/9/07, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We subsequently changed the bootstrap process. I'd have to go back
to the
archives, but late October 2006, I
, there
can always be exceptions of course)
Even though we use the concept of merit heavily, that doesn't mean that merit
is always a match with
that specific project.
OTOH this is also a non issue, since there is rather a shortage of mentors, so
there probably will
vote down a mentor when they need
Noel
I'm also with you - I don't think that - unless the ODE community have
some concerns - there is any need for any votes. I simply started a
vote on general because I thought it might be quicker than arguing
about whether a vote was necessary!
AFAIC we can get on and bootstrap the PPMC now
On 6/8/07, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noel
I'm also with you - I don't think that - unless the ODE community have
some concerns - there is any need for any votes.
+1
- robert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
On 6/8/07, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noel
I'm also with you - I don't think that - unless the ODE community have
some concerns - there is any need for any votes. I simply started a
vote on general because I thought it might be quicker than arguing
about whether a vote
Hi Noel,
On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Cool :) So should we have a vote on ode-dev then?
shrug
Sometimes I think that we get a bit vote happy. Is this really
something
that is in need of a vote? E.g., is this a policy decision, karma
grant or
code release? Does
Member role. The responsibilities are those of a PMC Member
accepting a Mentor role on a podling.
Being a Mentor is very much analogous to being a Release Manager, IMO, in
that it is a role that an individual undertakes on behalf of the PMC as a
whole.
Now, let us say that you have a vote
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
I like the group that needs to work with you to make the final
call (as a general rule, there can always be exceptions of course)
Yes, but does that require a formal vote if everyone is in favor of it? :-)
If there are objections, I'm sure we'd hear about them, even
, let us say that you have a vote. The result is 6 to 4.
Majority, even 60%. But I'd hardly consider that a consensus.
On the other hand, if there is a clear consensus, do we always
need to explicitly count it?
I think the term is lazy consensus which is not used to describe
anything beyond
members. We do PMC oversight, the only recognized form in the ASF
bylaws.
2. The Mentors form the initial podling PPMC
That would be a task they have to undertake, not a right, although we have
since modified that by vote after much discussion so that the Incubator
PMC votes on the initial PPMC
we have
since modified that by vote after much discussion so that the
Incubator
PMC votes on the initial PPMC rather than have the Mentors
bootstrap it.
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I just read the Policy again, and it sure appears that acceptance of
a podling by the Incubator is a lazy approval process. No vote occurs
unless an incubator PMC member says hold.
Read it again:
Upon a successful result, the PMC Chair
Cool :) So should we have a vote on ode-dev then?
shrug
Sometimes I think that we get a bit vote happy. Is this really something
that is in need of a vote? E.g., is this a policy decision, karma grant or
code release? Does being a Mentor grant any special powers/rights? Is it
really just
Oi!
On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:19 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
So I'm bringing this back to the Incubator PMC for discussion and
ultimately, a vote.
I would really appreciate it if we could all try to keep [VOTE] tags
in subject lines restricted to things that actually need a vote (e.g.
yes/no/+1/-1
Hey Leo,
I agree.
PPS: I have a similar problem with all the podling release [VOTE]s.
Often there's something to fix, and that has already been flagged
(more often than not by Robert) by the time I have the time to
investigate.
I really appreciate Robert's comments, but I also see your point
Hi,
On 3/28/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really appreciate Robert's comments, but I also see your point.
Why not making it a *rule* to change the subject of podling release
votes, where things come up, that needs to be fixed.
Isn't that the perfect cause for a -1 vote
Hi,
On 3/28/07, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:19 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
So I'm bringing this back to the Incubator PMC for discussion and
ultimately, a vote.
I would really appreciate it if we could all try to keep [VOTE] tags
in subject lines restricted to things
This was my bad. I wrote the subject line first and then the content
ended up not matching.
Ted
On Mar 28, 2007, at 3:29 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
Oi!
On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:19 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
So I'm bringing this back to the Incubator PMC for discussion and
ultimately, a vote.
I
to be fixed.
Isn't that the perfect cause for a -1 vote with an explanation? I
don't see why that should be taken to a separate thread. If there are
issues that need to be solved, then the original vote needs to be
withdrawn and a new one started.
it's difficult. i usually -0 or refuse to cast a vote
for the first release, perhaps we could arrange an audit rather than a
conventional release vote
sounds good !
- robert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 3/28/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not making it a *rule* to change the subject of podling release
votes, where things come up, that needs to be fixed.
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-revote
-T.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 11/14/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, I withdraw my -1.
Ditto. -- justin
Heh - we had no -1 to withdraw, I agreed with you Justin that lazy
concensus is wrong, but we hadn't put a -1 to the actual release.
That's why I replied to your note and
On 11/14/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, I withdraw my -1.
Ditto. -- justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More than 72 hours have passed, and presumably everybody on the
incubator PMC that cares to vote has done so (Thanks Robert!). Please
proceed with the release.
If anybody objects to this process, point them my way.
- Sam Ruby
Original Message
Subject: [VOTE] Ratify Tuscany
-1 on the release.
The simple rule is - you need 3 PMC votes to release (or add a committer).
You currently have 1 (Robert's). That should be enough if Sam and Dims
(your mentors) vote; however they currently haven't voted on either
the [EMAIL PROTECTED] thread or the original.
Hen
On 11/14
On 11/14/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More than 72 hours have passed, and presumably everybody on the
incubator PMC that cares to vote has done so (Thanks Robert!). Please
proceed with the release.
If anybody objects to this process, point them my way.
-1.
We don't release based
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 11/14/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More than 72 hours have passed, and presumably everybody on the
incubator PMC that cares to vote has done so (Thanks Robert!). Please
proceed with the release.
If anybody objects to this process, point them my way
Luciano Resende wrote:
LICENSE and NOTICE are available inside the war file at
WEB-INF\classes\META-INF, please let me know if they are in the wrong
place.
Why not simply under sample-companyweb-1.0-incubator-M2.war#META-INF/, along
with the other files? That would be the expected location,
Henri wrote:
you need 3 PMC votes to release (or add a committer).
You currently have 1 (Robert's).
Two. Dims voted tonight.
Since one vote was missing, I took the time to review the packages, and they
appear to have the necessary disclaimer, etc., although the information in
the .WAR files
On 11/14/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri wrote:
you need 3 PMC votes to release (or add a committer).
You currently have 1 (Robert's).
Two. Dims voted tonight.
Since one vote was missing, I took the time to review the packages, and they
appear to have the necessary
Reminder: Please take a look at the proposed release and vote on it.
So far, we have a +1 from Robert.
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany
On 11/7/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/7/06, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
key ID 96324791 used to sign releases
key ID 96324791 used to sign releases is not available from the usual
public key server networks. please upload to pgp.mit.edu (web
interface) or use gpg (to upload to any well known pubilc keyserver).
I had lodged this key at http://keyserver.veridis.com, but wasn't sure if
this would be
i'm now +1
(more inline)
On 11/7/06, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Robert for looking into this, more comments inline...
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
On 11/6/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Luciano Resende [EMAIL
On 11/7/06, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
key ID 96324791 used to sign releases is not available from the usual
public key server networks. please upload to pgp.mit.edu (web
interface) or use gpg (to upload to any well known pubilc keyserver).
I had lodged this key at
Thanks Robert for looking into this, more comments inline...
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
On 11/6/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Tuscany PPMC has voted to Release DAS for Java API
One more thing, about the signatures,the public key for verifying the
signatures may be found in :
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/KEYS
- Luciano Resende
On 11/6/06, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Robert for looking into this, more comments inline...
Please
On 11/3/06, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if I could draw your attention to this vote ratification
please?
Nobody has raised any show-stopping objections to any of the content. On
the
other hand, nobody has voted yet. I have been reading all the helpful
suggestions
On 11/4/06, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/3/06, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if I could draw your attention to this vote ratification
please?
Nobody has raised any show-stopping objections to any of the content. On
the
other hand, nobody has voted yet
Hi,
I wonder if I could draw your attention to this vote ratification please?
Nobody has raised any show-stopping objections to any of the content. On the
other hand, nobody has voted yet. I have been reading all the helpful
suggestions made in this thread and I have been reporting back on my
.
In accordance with Incubator release procedures we are asking the
Incubator
PMC to
approve this release.
Vote thread:*
*http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg09797.html
Result thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg10046.html
Regards, Kelvin Goodson
Robert, thanks for your comments.
I believe the tag issue is now resolved, by earlier notes on this thread.
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200610.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
)
The CCLA issue has also been resolved by jeremy boynes
README file added at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/README.txt
Regards, Kelvin.
On 28/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/28/06, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just trying to help, the SDO tag is available here :
On 10/27/06, Bill Dudney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kelvin,
The release includes the license and notice files but I don't see any
file pointing out the licenses of the individual jar files included
in the release.
The notice file is some what ambiguous on what is included under
which license.
On 10/25/06, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Tuscany PPMC has voted to release the SDO for Java API implementation as
part of the M2 release.
In accordance with Incubator release procedures we are asking the Incubator
PMC to
approve this release.
reviewing
Just trying to help, the SDO tag is available here :
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.0-incubator-M2/
- Luciano Resende
On 10/28/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/25/06, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Tuscany PPMC has
On 10/28/06, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just trying to help, the SDO tag is available here :
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.0-incubator-M2/
thanks
bit of an unconvention organisation but nothing wrong with that.
perhaps it might be useful to
with Incubator release procedures we are asking the
Incubator
PMC to
approve this release.
Vote thread:*
*http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg09797.html
Result thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg10046.html
Regards, Kelvin Goodson
. These would be made
available through the m2-incubating-repository to allow end users to
build source distributions of that release. In accordance with Incubator
release procedures we are asking the Incubator PMC to approve this release.
Vote thread (with links to artifacts and aRAT results):
http
On 10/16/06, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Tuscany PPMC has voted to release a parent pom and buildtools jar
that are dependencies for a forthcoming M2 release. These would be
made available through the m2-incubating-repository to allow end
users to build source distributions of
with Incubator
release procedures we are asking the Incubator PMC to approve this release.
Vote thread (with links to artifacts and aRAT results):
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200610.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Vote result:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox
not successfully influence ...
... I'm very pleased with all of the efforts to resolve entirely reasonable
confusion on the part of the submittors, and fully believe the project can
succeed as it addresses the remaining issues ...
... my vote is retracted, count me +/- 0 until we determine the rules
On 7/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
the vote to close, so please vote by 11:59PST on Thursday July 13th.
(this duration seems just a little
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 12:50 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I'd prefer a bit more time .. like the time for graduation etc. - these
are BIG decisions and unlike code decisions hard to revert. As such I
think we should not rush things
robert burrell donkin wrote:
is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I wouldn't do it over a week, especially a long weekend. And if very few
PMC members have voted, I might post a reminder to vote rather than close a
vote with a minimum of voters.
--- Noel
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 12:50 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I'd prefer a bit more time .. like the time for graduation etc. - these
are BIG decisions and unlike code decisions hard to revert
or so for
the vote to close, so please vote by 11:59PST on Thursday July
13th.
(this duration seems just a little bit on the short side to me:
it's good
to give everyone a chance to cast a vote. not sure whether there's a
consensus about the right duration for these votes. but it's
probably
the bigger
question is whether we ought to change the 72 hour guideline for
the foundation as a whole, or
make incuabator votes a clearly noted exception.
No. No vote at Apache should require more than 72 hours. Everyone does
not need to vote. We are a distributed organization that cannot
as a whole, or make
incuabator votes a clearly noted exception.
We should use our judgment to ensure a collaborative environment without
undue overhead. But it would be unfair, for example, to deliberately hold a
vote when someone whom you know is opposed is going to be off-line.
The Board has
undue overhead. But it would be unfair, for example, to
deliberately hold a
vote when someone whom you know is opposed is going to be off-line.
I was just asking the question, since a number of people seemed put
out by the
72 hour limit.I would say that if people are deliberately holding
Ted Leung wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We should use our judgment to ensure a collaborative environment
without undue overhead. But it would be unfair, for example, to
deliberately hold a vote when someone whom you know is opposed
is going to be off-line.
I was just asking
Humm.. I'll read it again but thats not what I got out of it. It
seemed to say that licenses will be available for the
endusers and that we must inform them.
Yes. And that license is supposed to be royalty free. Thus, I have no idea how that
leads to Apache being a development subsidiary
That is a problem as well, however my problem is that it requires
endusers to acquire an additional license.
Ok. As long as it's clear that it's not a royalty-based license, that's all I'm attempting to clarify.
they don't intend to make it royalty-based. Thats really weak.
--
No it says that your enduser of the Apache SAML library may
have to pay RSA for a license (or rather it doesn't say that they won't).
Uh, no it doesn't. It says quite explicitly (in the loose language of intent) that
they do *not* plan to charge. Or if that's not
clear, please at least take
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 17/02/2003 16.23:
Incubator Folks,
We (PMC@WS) had a VOTE for accepting OpenSAML as part of Web Services project. Here are the
results.
+1 from 12 members. Zero -1 or -0 or +0 votes.
Excellent.
What should we do next. Please advise.
The only thing that I'd
Isn't that a no no?
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Andrew,
IANAL...But I think you are right.
Thanks,
dims
--- Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clarify this for me. I might contribute to this OpenSAML, which I'm
free to do as a member of Apache who would hence have license. However
Andrew,
Since Web Services = Legal Mine field...Getting the license for Apache will ensure
that Apache as
a Legal Entity will be protected and that the coding can go on for now. There are 2
JSR's in the
jcp and WS-Security spec in OASIS that will need this as well.
Am not sure there anything
What scares the crap out of me is the weasel words. intent to offer
royalty free
As a rule, lawyers are very careful in what they say and do
not say. I can only presume that the word intent was carefully chosen.
We've assumed the word is there simply because they have not set the
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Andrew,
Since Web Services = Legal Mine field...Getting the license for Apache will ensure that Apache as
a Legal Entity will be protected and that the coding can go on for now. There are 2 JSR's in the
jcp and WS-Security spec in OASIS that will need this as well.
Am
73 matches
Mail list logo
