Thilo Goetz wrote:
<snip>
+1 to the overall content, nice work Marshall.
Thanks!
Some minor comments:
- Since we have our mailing list addresses in plain text in other
places, I don't think it's necessary AT.DOT it on the project
guidelines page, it just makes it hard to read.
I saw this style on some other pages. I agree it is inconsistent, and I
too prefer just ordinary email names (I guess until my mail box starts
filling up with too much spam).
- In general, I don't think we should be talking about the "product".
That sounds too much like closed source software. If we need to talk
in this abstract way, "software" might be a neutral term. However, I
think it would be even better to talk about "UIMA".
Sounds right.
- I'm not sure I'd want to talk about "promotion" when making a
contributor a committer, or when making a committer a PMC member.
We're not in the army ;-) I'd probably say something like "a
contributor can be granted commit access".
OK. But we'll still keep the multiple role definitions, right? (e.g.
contributor, committer, PMC member)
- The "Project Management Committee" heading on the roles and
responsibilities page is missing the "Project"
OK
- The mailing lists should be explained on the mailing lists' page.
This good content, just not in the right place I think.
OK
- I have no idea what kind of votes should be majority votes, and what
votes should be consensus votes. Does anybody know?
- On the contributions policy page, I'm missing something on the use
of externally developed libraries (such as DocBook). I looked, but
found no place on the Apache site that we can just link to as far as
compatible licenses go. If anybody finds one, let me know. If not,
this might be a point to raise on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is one: it's here: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
-Marshall
