You got it. Wiki's probably the lowest overhead, given that it'll end up in wiki as well. I don't think there's an SVN requirement.
Kalle On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlew...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
