Re: [VOTE] Accept not yet commons ssl project WAS : Re: [Vote] Where should not-yet-commons-ssl go?

2007-03-02 Thread Oleg Kalnichevski
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 23:35 +0100, Martin van den Bemt wrote: I prefer this vote to see where it should end up in Jakarta and based on that result the path full incubation / legal incubation is decided. So in my view the vote should be : [x] Jakarta should sponsor (which effectively

Re: [VOTE] Accept not yet commons ssl project WAS : Re: [Vote] Where should not-yet-commons-ssl go?

2007-02-24 Thread Martin van den Bemt
Let's keep this statement your personal opinion on the fact that it is not relevant. I still like to know the opinion of others. If you want opinions, don't use a vote to collect them. This is a vote thread, not an opinion thread. Votes within the ASF are for decision making, not

Re: [VOTE] Accept not yet commons ssl project WAS : Re: [Vote] Where should not-yet-commons-ssl go?

2007-02-24 Thread Martin Cooper
On 2/24/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's keep this statement your personal opinion on the fact that it is not relevant. I still like to know the opinion of others. If you want opinions, don't use a vote to collect them. This is a vote thread, not an opinion

Re: [VOTE] Accept not yet commons ssl project WAS : Re: [Vote] Where should not-yet-commons-ssl go?

2007-02-24 Thread Roland Weber
Since there is no stated end date to this vote: Please let it (or it's replacement) run until at least March 4th. Oleg will be working through a mail backlog that week-end. If this vote thread should be replaced next week, I will not be able to re-cast my vote until the week-end of March 10/11.

[VOTE] Accept not yet commons ssl project WAS : Re: [Vote] Where should not-yet-commons-ssl go?

2007-02-23 Thread Martin van den Bemt
I prefer this vote to see where it should end up in Jakarta and based on that result the path full incubation / legal incubation is decided. So in my view the vote should be : [ ] Jakarta should sponsor (which effectively states we like to see the code end up here) [ ] Jakarta shouldn't

Re: [VOTE] Accept not yet commons ssl project WAS : Re: [Vote] Where should not-yet-commons-ssl go?

2007-02-23 Thread Martin van den Bemt
Martin van den Bemt wrote: I prefer this vote to see where it should end up in Jakarta and based on that result the path full incubation / legal incubation is decided. So in my view the vote should be : [X] Jakarta should sponsor (which effectively states we like to see the code end

Re: [VOTE] Accept not yet commons ssl project WAS : Re: [Vote] Where should not-yet-commons-ssl go?

2007-02-23 Thread Martin Cooper
On 2/23/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I prefer this vote to see where it should end up in Jakarta and based on that result the path full incubation / legal incubation is decided. So in my view the vote should be : [ ] Jakarta should sponsor (which effectively states we like

Re: [VOTE] Accept not yet commons ssl project WAS : Re: [Vote] Where should not-yet-commons-ssl go?

2007-02-23 Thread Martin van den Bemt
Martin Cooper wrote: On 2/23/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I prefer this vote to see where it should end up in Jakarta and based on that result the path full incubation / legal incubation is decided. So in my view the vote should be : [ ] Jakarta should sponsor (which

Re: [VOTE] Accept not yet commons ssl project WAS : Re: [Vote] Where should not-yet-commons-ssl go?

2007-02-23 Thread Martin Cooper
On 2/23/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: On 2/23/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I prefer this vote to see where it should end up in Jakarta and based on that result the path full incubation / legal incubation is decided. So in my