Yep, that's the plan at least - and I'd love some review/help along the way :) I'll be able to dedicate some time to this tomorrow. How do we want to go through edit iterations? SVN? Wiki? Mailing List only?
Les On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kalle Korhonen <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com> wrote: > Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should > probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it > as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a > requirement but recommended). > > Kalle > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen > <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlew...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation? >>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote? >> >> The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives >> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action >> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is >> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion. >> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is >> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1 >> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free >> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few >> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now. >> >> Kalle >> >> >>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen >>> <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlew...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the >>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last >>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the >>>>> existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his >>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else. >>>> >>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new >>>> version. >>>> >>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is >>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an >>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only >>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely >>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely. >>>> >>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more >>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary >>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK. >>>> >>>> Kalle >>>> >>> >> >
