On 12/16/06, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 from me.
Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they
sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1].
AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to
protect POI,
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:25 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
[...]
what is your interest here? Do you have nothing better to do?
You *might* (at some point) read up what part of Apache the POI project
is in and who is currently legally responsible for it.
This is not your small, private show
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 20:30 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
[...]
I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to
We do know that you are not serious here.
[...]
With the launch of Buni (http://buni.org) my time for repeating votes
Domain Name:BUNI.ORG
Created
Hello Niall,
Why is it any different than Harmony?
Harmony requires that an Authorized Contributor Questionnaire
be signed. The ACQ surely has been reviewd by the ASF legal team,
and signatures are legally significant.
http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html
The POI Get Involved page
On 12/17/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Niall,
Why is it any different than Harmony?
Harmony requires that an Authorized Contributor Questionnaire
be signed. The ACQ surely has been reviewd by the ASF legal team,
and signatures are legally significant.
Hi Sanka,
what you are missing is
svn propset svn:executable on site/docs/site/downloads/downloads_bsf.cgi
This will set this file to executable when you check out the site into
the jakarta tree and allow the CGI script to run.
Best regards
Henning
On Fri,
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 12/16/06, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 from me.
Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they
sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1].
AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 12/17/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Niall,
Why is it any different than Harmony?
Harmony requires that an Authorized Contributor Questionnaire
be signed. The ACQ surely has been reviewd by the ASF legal team,
and signatures are legally
hy im happy to join to ur party
--
This message was sent on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] at openSubscriber.com
http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/general@jakarta.apache.org/5604698.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Rainer Klute schrieb:
Martin van den Bemt schrieb:
[+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
[-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
[0] I don't care.
Having read all the contribution
http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=endep=/gQPU.search=contributions on this
thread, I revoke
On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/15/06, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
requirement.
Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :)
Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the
thread till this point.
Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread
seems seems quite painful.
At the end of the day, I believe we keep
Hi Avik,
Avik Sengupta wrote:
Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :)
I know what you mean :)
Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the
thread till this point.
Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread
seems seems
Jakarta Board Report
First of all I like to mention that I haven't be able to spent the
time I wanted to spend, which is something I will try to improve.
I like to request special attention is given to the POI subproject
section in the report.
Another improvement should be that the majority of
On 12/17/06, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Avik Sengupta wrote:
I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
dont
Replying to myself :)
People I am doing something wrong. The board report should be created by the
committers, with a
personal note added from the Vice President (or in slang Chair). As you all can
see, I am the only
one who wrote it, which is 1) time consuming 2) icomplete (just have a look a
Hello Avik,
I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project
I don't think that the
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
Replying to myself :)
People I am doing something wrong. The board report should be created by the
committers, with a
personal note added from the Vice President (or in slang Chair). As you all can
see, I am the only
one who wrote it, which is 1) time consuming 2)
Nah not like that one :) One with all correct projects already present (I'll
just change that page!)
:) I want to make sure that all reports contain all subprojects and preferrably
all sub sub projects
(and I really hope we don't have any sub sub sub projects)
Thanx for the link :) Knew
made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board
to reject it and tell us make POI work in Jakarta before you
promote it to TLP.
That is was my feeling as well, but I understood from the board that they
rather prefer that things
are not hidden in subprojects, which is something
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on Jakarta Wiki for
change notification.
The following page has been changed by MartinvandenBemt:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/BoardReportTemplate
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on Jakarta Wiki for
change notification.
The following page has been changed by MartinvandenBemt:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/BoardReportTemplate
Hi everyone,
The official way board reports should be handled has 2 parts : 1 part that is
edited by the the
committers (= the people who know best about there projects) and after that the
VP can add his
personal notes to the report.
So starting from now I would like to see that people add the
Feel free to remove it from commons and add it to HttpComponents. It was just a
dumb copy paste
from the commons webpage :) While you are at it, you could also add this to the
template (+ httpcode
and httpasync)
Mvgr,
Martin
Apache Wiki wrote:
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki
On 12/17/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Avik,
I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
dont want us to be
Hi,
On 12/17/06, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
I simply don't care to be honest. Nick is doing lot's of work for POI,
without any guidance from the
people you anticipate of giving guidance, which is what I care about. So my
first goal is helping
out Nick
Hello Henri,
I bet a lot of Jakarta does not conform - it's only when a release
happens that we think about bringing it up to date. This is not a
problem of the POI community but a problem of the Jakarta community
structure and for the PMC. It's the PMC's responsibility to make sure
these
It feels like they are acting as a separate entity in Jakarta and
even the ASF itself
Let me put on record my severe objection to this statement.
Regards
-
Avik
Quoting Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jakarta Board Report
First of all I like to mention that I haven't be able to
Avik Sengupta schrieb:
It feels like they are acting as a separate entity in Jakarta and
even the ASF itself
Let me put on record my severe objection to this statement.
Yes, the wording is quite harsh. However, following the arguments in the
POI thread, we indeed seem not to act as we should
29 matches
Mail list logo
