Hi Ted,
> Look in /home/cvs/CVSROOT /avail on cvs.apache.org.
Ah; thanks.
> For Xerces-n this is true. You'll notice that there is on CVS repo for
all
> of Xerces.
Right. Which means that if we were to adhere to the letter of the charter,
it would almost never be possible to get a majority vo
I've committed some of the changes from Peter,
Berin and Steven.
The criteria that I used were that I tried to
commit changes that had to do with clarifying
relationships with the Board, Incubator and
projects/subproject. Changes clarifying xml.apache.org
wide vs subproject committers got
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Revisions to xml.apache.org charter
> Hi Dirk and all,
>
> I've had concerns similar to Joerg's for quite a w
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
Steven Noels wrote:
My nitpicking was based on the _required_ votes. I think we should have
as little required votes as possible.
Indeed. There should be some common sense and perhaps tradition applied
to what's voted on. I think the charter can mention "important issues
regarding the codebase", w
Joerg,
I hadn't even thought of that. My general concern was to have spelled
out the circumstances in which a) all committers on XML sub-projects or
b) all committers on a particular sub-project are being referred to.
It's not enough to rely on context.
Your point is, of course, valid.
Peter
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
Voting should be made a requirement for _releases_ IMHO.
...and other "important decisions", subject to "common sense".
For example:
- major non-incremental design changes
if consensus exist: dunnow
otherwise: +0.5
is voting a method of gauging consensu
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Indeed, given that there are usually quite a few "inactive" committers
> for a specific (sub-)project. It might be necessary to keep records of
> committers currently eligible for 2/3 majorities
Hmm - that would be rather hard, and perhaps have to
Steven Noels wrote:
Voting should be made a requirement for _releases_ IMHO.
...and other "important decisions", subject to "common sense".
For example:
- major non-incremental design changes
- branching
- public API changes, in particular if other Apache projects
are known to be affected (should
Peter B. West wrote:
a two-thirds majority of committers.
Again, which committers?
Indeed, given that there are usually quite a few "inactive"
committers for a specific (sub-)project. It might be necessary to
keep records of committers currently eligible for 2/3 majorities
J.Pietschmann
--
Ted Leung wrote:
so please comment, etc.
Inline (just a few of them).
---
xml.apache.org is a collaborative software development project
dedicated to providing robust, full-featured, commercial-quality, and
freely available XML support on a wide variety of plat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ted,
Comments/thoughts in-line. Take with grain of salt. I haven't
attempted to create new text, and am not sure what process you want to
follow to evolve this document to final form.
Cheers,
~Berin
Ted Leung wrote:
| Hi All,
|
|
|
| Here is a fi
Ted,
See comments below.
Ted Leung wrote:
...
HISTORY
===
This project was established under the direction of the newly-formed
Apache Software Foundation in August 1999 to facilitate joint
open-source development.
I would like to see the terms 'contributor', 'developer' and 'committe
13 matches
Mail list logo
