On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> I am not a fan of chats and not even sending chat protocols to the dev
> list. Sending a completed chat protocol is just announcing the result
> of a discussion with only a few partners. Its very difficult to step
> up afterwards and of
On 9/17/2010 11:27 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>> +1 indeed. If not, ATS is in big trouble :). We have a very active community
>> in the IRC room, where we brainstorm and help each other out all the time
>
> I don't think anybody said
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On 09/17/2010 08:20 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> +1. It's hypocrisy to tell podlings that chat is entirely intolerable
>> when plenty of running projects have them.
>
> +1 indeed. If not, ATS is in big trouble :). We have a very active
On 09/17/2010 08:20 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
+1. It's hypocrisy to tell podlings that chat is entirely intolerable
when plenty of running projects have them.
+1 indeed. If not, ATS is in big trouble :). We have a very active
community in the IRC room, where we brainstorm and help each othe
Hi Glen
Thanks for your input and a different view. I took the chat channell off
the proposal, because I don't want that the project to be assessed on
this single point. If a chat is useful for the followers, why not, as
long as it is transparent and decisions are not made that way.
Best
Urs
Am
+1. It's hypocrisy to tell podlings that chat is entirely intolerable
when plenty of running projects have them.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Glen Daniels wrote:
> On 9/17/2010 9:41 AM, Urs Lerch wrote:
>> To cut a long story short: ALOIS is _not_ about a chat channel, it's a
>> tool for secu
On 9/17/2010 9:41 AM, Urs Lerch wrote:
> To cut a long story short: ALOIS is _not_ about a chat channel, it's a
> tool for security incident and event management. Since the chat channell
> in the required resources list was only a wish, I gladly dropped it off
> the proposal.
Hi Urs,
While I cert
Hi
To cut a long story short: ALOIS is _not_ about a chat channel, it's a
tool for security incident and event management. Since the chat channell
in the required resources list was only a wish, I gladly dropped it off
the proposal.
Best
Urs
Am Freitag, den 17.09.2010, 07:32 -0400 schrieb Jim J
I still don't see how that gets around the perception, and the
reality, that development is being done outside the list.
So I don't see that proposal as helping out at all...
On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:27 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> I understand the concern raised by the use of real-time communication f
>> ...since ALOIS should
>> become a community project, I still think the followers of it should
>> decide which communication channell they prefer. (By the way, I myself
>> sure am no fan of chats.)...
>
> The "if it didn't happen on the dev list, it didn't happen" rule is
> not negociable, althou
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Urs Lerch wrote:
> ...since ALOIS should
> become a community project, I still think the followers of it should
> decide which communication channell they prefer. (By the way, I myself
> sure am no fan of chats.)...
See also our comments in the "Real-time com
Hi Craig
Thanks for you input and your vote.
In my view, the chat is not a must, but a proposition. I understand your
concern and I certainly will keep it in mind. But since ALOIS should
become a community project, I still think the followers of it should
decide which communication channell they
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 21:32 +0200, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> > ...I'm interested in what others think of their proposal for supporting
> > real-time communication, and curious what others are doing, if anything, to
> > support the growing i
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> ...I'm interested in what others think of their proposal for supporting
> real-time communication, and curious what others are doing, if anything, to
> support the growing interest in real-time communication between project
> participants
I understand the concern raised by the use of real-time communication for
Apache projects - that decisions may be made off-list, and that folks who
aren't a party to the real-time communication do not have the opportunity to
benefit from or impact the decisions that result from the real-time
commun
Hi Urs,
My only concern is the request to have a chat channel. There's wide
use of chat channels in Apache (the periodic board and members'
meetings make use of them, and infrastructure uses channels to
advantage).
But for an incubating project, I'd strongly discourage use of chat as
a
I think it is often a sign of "I don't care either way", when no one
responds. At least this is my take on projects; If I don't care, I
won't stop others from embracing, and silently say nothing.
Cheers
Niclas
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> All,
>
> this vote will
Hi Tim
Thanks for your interest and thanks to Christian for his effort.
So far the project and therefore the code had only be used in two
organizations. Therefore, the project is like closed, although licenced
under the GPL. There is really almost no usable documentation (at least
in English, bec
+1
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> All,
>
> this vote will fail in three hours because nobody responds to it. Are
> there any objections against this proposal? Or why is this vote
> ignored?
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Urs Lerc
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> All,
>
> this vote will fail in three hours because nobody responds to it. Are
> there any objections against this proposal? Or why is this vote
> ignored?
Hi Christian,
I ignored it because it was odd to me that there's essentially no
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> ...this vote will fail in three hours because nobody responds to it. Are
> there any objections against this proposal? Or why is this vote
> ignored?...
72 hours is a minimum, not a maximum, so no real problem.
I'll have a look until
All,
this vote will fail in three hours because nobody responds to it. Are
there any objections against this proposal? Or why is this vote
ignored?
Best regards,
Christian
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Urs Lerch wrote:
> Hi everybody out there
>
> The vote for ALOIS ends in about 24 hours. A
Hi everybody out there
The vote for ALOIS ends in about 24 hours. Are there any more comments
or votes? We would appreciate it to get to know your opinion.
Best
Urs
Am Montag, den 13.09.2010, 11:33 -0400 schrieb Urs Lerch:
> Hi
>
> Since the first call a few weeks ago didn't suceed (more ment
Hi Tim
Unfortunately, so far there is no link to the existing code. Until now
the software has been used only in two organizations. Be asured that we
are aware that we have to do a lot of basic work to release the code to
the community. Nontheless, if you are interested I can send you the code
as
I might be missing it, but is there a link to the existing GPL project/code?
Thanks
--tim
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Urs Lerch wrote:
> Hi
>
> Since the first call a few weeks ago didn't suceed (more mentors were
> asked), I would like to call a second vote for accepting the security
> inf
[X] +1, bring ALOIS into Incubator
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> [X] +1, bring ALOIS into Incubator
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Urs Lerch wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Since the first call a few weeks ago didn't suceed (more mentors were
> > asked), I would like
[X] +1, bring ALOIS into Incubator
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Urs Lerch wrote:
> Hi
>
> Since the first call a few weeks ago didn't suceed (more mentors were
> asked), I would like to call a second vote for accepting the security
> information and event management tool "ALOIS" for incubatio
+1 (Not binding)
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Urs Lerch wrote:
> Hi
>
> Since the first call a few weeks ago didn't suceed (more mentors were
> asked), I would like to call a second vote for accepting the security
> information and event management tool "ALOIS" for incubation in the
> Apache
Hi
Since the first call a few weeks ago didn't suceed (more mentors were
asked), I would like to call a second vote for accepting the security
information and event management tool "ALOIS" for incubation in the
Apache Incubator. Thanks Christian Grobmeier we now have two mentors at
least. But any
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:33, Urs Lerch wrote:
> Good point! I agree with you that three mentors would be perfect. Since
> I've seen other votes that have reported more volunteers as mentors, I
> had the hope that it happens here, too. I did already ask other persons
> for support, but didn't suc
Good point! I agree with you that three mentors would be perfect. Since
I've seen other votes that have reported more volunteers as mentors, I
had the hope that it happens here, too. I did already ask other persons
for support, but didn't succeed yet. Do you have any advice how to be
more attractiv
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Bernd Fondermann
wrote:
> as soon as you come up with 2 more mentors, you have my +1.
Same here, one mentor is not enough.
People get busy on other stuff, go on vacation, etc.
-Bertrand
-
To uns
as soon as you come up with 2 more mentors, you have my +1.
Bernd
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 18:09, Urs Lerch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to call a vote for accepting "ALOIS" for incubation in
> the Apache Incubator. The full proposal is available below and on the
> proposal wiki page (http://w
+1
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din <
nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 notbinding
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
> > OK, I read the syntax of this sideways.
> >
> > +1, binding, from me.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Urs Lerch
+1 notbinding
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> OK, I read the syntax of this sideways.
>
> +1, binding, from me.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Urs Lerch wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> There is, at least in my opinion, a very clear statement regarding the
>> licencing:
>>
>>
OK, I read the syntax of this sideways.
+1, binding, from me.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Urs Lerch wrote:
> Hi
>
> There is, at least in my opinion, a very clear statement regarding the
> licencing:
>
> = Source and Intellectual Property Submission Plan =
>
> ALOIS is currently under a
Hi
There is, at least in my opinion, a very clear statement regarding the
licencing:
= Source and Intellectual Property Submission Plan =
ALOIS is currently under a GPL licence. Since there are only two
contributors so far, both from the same company, there is no problem
to re-licence th
I don't see anything explicit in here about relicensing from GPL to
ASL. Perhaps that was hashed out before I joined the PMC?
I'm +0 tending toward -1 without an explicit statement that the
copyright owners are known and on board with the license change.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Urs Lerc
Hi,
I would like to call a vote for accepting "ALOIS" for incubation in
the Apache Incubator. The full proposal is available below and on the
proposal wiki page (http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AloisProposal). We
ask the Incubator PMC to sponsor it, with Scott Deboy volunteering as
Champion and
39 matches
Mail list logo