Re: [VOTE] Accept Myriad into the Apache Incubator

So we will see more to report when it does make it in. Some good, some bad. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:01 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Oh ok, because of that you can't make it to this month's report ;-) > > On Sun Feb 22 2015 at 6:16:25 PM Ted Dunning > wrote: > > > 7 days was chosen to be co

Re: Podling Name Searches

Yes, you still need to do a podling name search. Hopefully that will show that the existing name is already good to start with and doesn't conflict with other, pre-existing similar software products. If the community intends to keep the name, we need a clear donation of the trademark itself from

[VOTE] Release Apache Twill-0.5.0-incubating

Hi all, This is to call for a vote on releasing Apache Twill 0.5.0-incubating. This is the sixth release for Twill. Apache Twill is an abstraction over Apache Hadoop YARN that reduces the complexity of developing distributed applications. Vote on twill-dev: http://s.apache.org/lfz Result on vot

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

Ok, take ur of the incubator list. Where my only comment is as power my mail below: PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the "p" and thus drop the confusion) Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Stein Sent: ‎2/‎24/‎2015

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache MRQL 0.9.4 incubating (RC2)

Hello, This vote is open for more than a week and we still need one more IPMC vote. Could somebody help us her? Thanks Leonidas Fegaras On 02/22/2015 01:00 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Ping :) Regards, Alan On Feb 18, 2015, at 7:22 PM, Leonidas Fegaras wrote: Hello, This release still needs

Re: [STATUS] WAS [DISCUSS] Commons RDF to join the Apache Incubator

On 23/02/15 10:32, Benedikt Ritter wrote: Hello, 2015-02-22 21:56 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : Lewis, It looks like there were a few things called out. - Identify a champion (looks like you did already) - Solicit support from mentors. It looks like those are the only two open issues. Benedikt

Re: How to add a committer that is not incubator.

On 24 Feb 2015 08:36, "jan i" wrote: > If we want to add a existing committer (one with an apache ID) to our > project as PPMC and committer, we of course have the normal vote. > If that committer happens to also be an Apache Member, then it probably would be great for that person to also join I

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >... > Sam --> Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with > incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator. > I believe Sam gave this based on a singular, concrete proposal. He would likely respond d

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

Stop talking about Incubator changes. You begin with pTLP, but devolve into other proposals about changes to the Incubator. Niclas restarted this thread about pTLP. That is all. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Ok let me try aga

Re: How to add a committer that is not incubator.

On 24 February 2015 at 12:19, John D. Ament wrote: > On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 3:36:50 AM jan i wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > Maybe a stupid question, but I cannot find the answer. > > > > If we want to add a existing committer (one with an apache ID) to our > > project as PPMC and committer, we of cours

Re: How to add a committer that is not incubator.

On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 3:36:50 AM jan i wrote: > Hi. > > Maybe a stupid question, but I cannot find the answer. > > If we want to add a existing committer (one with an apache ID) to our > project as PPMC and committer, we of course have the normal vote. > I'm assuming that the vote was forwarded

Re: [STATUS] WAS [DISCUSS] Commons RDF to join the Apache Incubator

John, Thank you very much for the offer of mentoring - I've added you to the list. And I've renamed the proposal as "CommonRDFProposal" as that seems to be naming style on the wiki. Andy On 22/02/15 20:56, John D. Ament wrote: Lewis, It looks like there were a few things called out

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

Ok let me try again. I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea. My own conc

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Hi Niclas, > > I'm in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don't > agree with others that it hasn't been well specified yet. I > There is (yet) a singular page that defines the process. Roman has b

How to add a committer that is not incubator.

Hi. Maybe a stupid question, but I cannot find the answer. If we want to add a existing committer (one with an apache ID) to our project as PPMC and committer, we of course have the normal vote. If that person is not a committer of Incubator, do we then need to do something additional to get the

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

"if we accept" ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross:

Re: pTLP process amendments

This is fantastic. Thanks you, Niclas! On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Roman, > > See comments below to > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP > > > 2.1 --> I suggest to change the word "probationary" to "provisional". I > also suggest that