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
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:
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
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
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
+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 :)
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.
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 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 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 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 6/22/2010 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 6/23/2010 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 6/25/2010 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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 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 2/25/2011 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 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 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
OpenOffice.org will be contributed to Apache Software Foundation by Oracle
Corporation in compliance with ASF licensing and governance.
Luke, could you offer some insight into affixing the Apache License v2.0
to this code base? Only ALv2 code is released by the foundation.
LGPL/MPL cannot
On 6/1/2011 8:41 PM, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
My questions then are absolutely pragmatic and relate—hence the to post—to
issues not so far discussed:
* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
* We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good purposes. We
grant these,
On 6/1/2011 10:37 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Other Works
* You can use the Creative Commons Attribution License
(Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5).
We only accept work under this license that is non
On 6/1/2011 11:07 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 22:52, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
What am I missing here?
According to the Incubation Policy [1]:
A Sponsor SHALL be either:
* the Board of the Apache Software Foundation;
* a Top Level Project (TLP) within the
On 6/2/2011 11:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
We know the *precise* list of files that we have rights to. They are
explicitly specified in the software grant recorded by the Secretary.
For all other files not listed: we have no special rights. Those files
would be under their original license,
On 6/2/2011 11:07 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
do know about it, people
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 6/3/2011 10:20 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others
can comment
much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play
together, and what
ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be
On 6/3/2011 12:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
collaborate once
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. It would
be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM
On 6/3/2011 1:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.
You need to flush your cache... ~20 committers
On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get
such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following
questions. This would help us understand what room there is for
negotiation and what is not
On 6/3/2011 9:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties,
or whatever... There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that
I have done wrong, or did not do, or did not due to someone's satisfaction.
If people want, I will
On 6/4/2011 7:37 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
It is not relevant how ASF would answer these questions.
You see, I think it is, and apparently other mentors do as well...
I'm open to to possibility that a 6-month old open source association with
a single project might have more
On 6/4/2011 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Our emails may have crossed in the ether. My suggestion is that I
take ownership of this question. I will state that I do not plan to
proceed via this questionnaire.
I missed the *what* you were taking ownership of :) Coolio, and thanks.
In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be
raised here...
On 6/5/2011 3:30 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
Why open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of
software to be made proprietary
On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in
on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was
Saturday :-)
On 6/5/2011 5:30 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01
PM:
This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for
entering the incubator are not high and so
On 6/5/2011 5:45 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (05-06-11 23:25)
So, it does not logically follow that if a proposal at Apache is rejected
that we go to TDF/LO.
After all, why would you ?
Purely argumentative posts aren't appropriate on this forum. Take it elsewhere.
On 6/5/2011 6:19 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org
wrote:
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com
On 6/5/2011 6:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own.
That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our projects,
but somehow they manage to
On 6/5/2011 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
With the exception of pure-BSD purists (who reject the patent clauses)
AL can be mixed with any code to come out with the more restrictive of
the licenses.
AL + BSD == AL
AL + MPL == MPL
AL + GPL == GPL
The following are not possible
On 6/5/2011 3:56 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
others, Free/Libre software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work
is ever Free/Libre. There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought,
and we won't go into detail
On 6/5/2011 7:13 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
This is what I entered into the wiki:
The
On 6/5/2011 8:26 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
We are now 50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a
contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing.
Let's remember please to not feed
On 6/5/2011 9:33 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this
place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand
why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the
LibreOffice part of the OOo
On 6/5/2011 11:43 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
Agreed. I wish I had a clearer idea of what constitutes a good
reason to reject an incubator proposal on principle, though - even
just a good enough reason to reject this one. As long as there is
some promise of building a community and IP / grant
On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this
project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should
and shouldn't devote that time and energy to?
I am just a volunteer
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd,
was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior
On 6/6/2011 4:55 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
that being said - can OOo really be treated like each other podling? I
start to feel it might not be the case. Can we change the rules while
the game? Yes, we can. I would be very dissappointed if we would obey
blindly to our own rules just
On 6/7/2011 10:23 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
One question about the comment above though: Are you advocating that Apache
OOo stick to source-only releases, and avoid
building and delivering binaries altogether? Or is your idea that Apache
OOo would deliver builds, but that they be Vanilla
On 6/7/2011 11:11 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Just to clarify, only source code is released by the ASF. Yes, there may
I don't believe this is true - we have to release the source, but
anything we distribute
On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Danese Cooper dan...@gmail.com wrote on 06/07/2011 03:43:56 PM:
Apache don't think that money is evil, but we also believe that
seeing our code in wide use is more important than money.
OpenOffice.org is important to the Developing World,
On 6/8/2011 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo
LibreOffice on a technological level and on a distribution level
2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony).
I
On 6/8/2011 11:12 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that a copyleft swallow or an ALv2 swallow?
No definitive indicator for the latter, but if it consumes parts of
the other, then it must be the former ...
I believe the
On 6/10/2011 11:02 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Please cast your votes:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
+1 [binding]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
On 6/10/2011 11:45 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
For us outsiders, can you explain who is allowed to vote and in what way,
please?
Everyone is welcome to vote.
Binding votes include all Incubator Project Management Committee members.
Non-binding votes can and do influence the opinions of committee
On 6/10/2011 12:04 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
(Officially I'm on the incubator PMC I believe but I have not been active ..
so lets chalk this up for non-binding.)
Then you just cast a binding vote. Feel free to change it, or withdraw it,
but the committee roster determines which binds.
On 6/10/2011 2:04 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Please. Being on a PMC can't *reduce* one's rights.
So, if I were on the PMC and I said +1 (intentionally non-binding),
I would expect it not to be counted as binding.
Then state I would vote +1 but haven't spent sufficient time reviewing
this,
On 6/12/2011 4:03 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Not that much;
* Same players.
* Same importance.
Really?
I'm pretty certain there is 0.05% overlap between the Office Suite
and Java Runtime mechanics of either Sun or IBM. They probably never
even shared so much as a VP, although I could be
On 6/13/2011 11:26 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
Binding votes are ones that are cast by Incubator PMC members. Quorum
is 3 binding +1 yes votes.
On 6/13/2011 11:31 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Phillip Rhodes
Mondo rad. But one quick question what does the (v) mean, listed after
some of the names in the voter list?
I meant to either explain that or remove it. Oh well. :-)
That was my own personal
Bill Stoddard
+1 struberg Mark Struberg
-1 twilliamsTim Williams
+1 upayaviraUpayavira
+1 wroweWilliam A. Rowe Jr.
+1 zwoopLeif Hedstrom
Non-binding:
+1 aaf Alexei Fedotov
+0 aku Andreas Kuckartz
+1 asavory Andrew Savory
+1 bayard Henri
On 7/1/2011 10:19 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
Based on the email trail recently, I'm in favor of completing the
vote. I think that there is sufficient evidence that this project has
'failed to launch' as an Apache
On 7/1/2011 4:04 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]
We also made it clear the *author* should also commit their own code, and
all authors should become committers.
Each term (semester) Bluesky will get a new crop of students (committers
On 7/1/2011 7:58 PM, Chen Liu wrote:
We're preparing for the 4th version release.
We need the whole July to do this work,thanks for your patience.
Ok, stop.
I think you are all conflating releases with what is required
to continue here at the ASF.
releases have not been the main issue.
The
On 7/1/2011 8:10 PM, Chen Liu wrote:
We've already known our failure in ASF. We would not
find any excuses for this bed situation.
But we just hope one more month to release the 4th version work.
We've been advancing Bluesky project and now the 4th version is an
integtared system including
On 6/28/2011 12:49 AM, berndf wrote:
Hi everyone,
this is a vote to retire the Bluesky podling.
3.5 years into incubation, the podling has not made progress in terms of
becoming an Apache project. Dev is still done behind closed doors, and
developers are changing frequently without
On 7/5/2011 7:36 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Anyhow, what do other think? Should mentors be pushing early and often
on this subject, or is it reasonable wait for, oh, 18 months and a few
releases before getting pushy?
18 months and 'a few releases', with no obstacle but attracting more
On 7/5/2011 7:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I wasn't clear on the timing. They launched in Nov 2010 and have made
one release. It will be 18 months in June of 2012. the question I was
trying to explore was, 'how essential is it to have shown that they
can attract and integrate new people
On 8/17/2011 12:37 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
The copyright item isn't signed off at
https://incubator.apache.org/projects/olio.html.
So would need to delete the code (assuming a successful retirement vote).
Where are the mentors?
Wondering how conflicted-providence IP would hit svn in the
On 8/17/2011 12:47 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:40 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 8/17/2011 12:37 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
The copyright item isn't signed off at
https://incubator.apache.org/projects/olio.html.
So would need to delete the code
1 - 100 of 652 matches
Mail list logo
