Sounds good to me. +1 for the wiki.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Kalle Korhonen <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
