What? Is this now an implicit ASF incubation policy? So, if I understand you correctly, you want to exclude potentials from the incubation process based on this? And you don't want this potential have their own way of working?
Even though 18 peers voted +1 for having this potential entering the ASF as a podling. This is not a code change requiring consensus. This is a procedural issue. No, you may not speak for all of us. If you want to speak for all on this subject, go make it a dictat from the Board of the ASF. But are you sure that then it is not also applicable to TLPs? Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > ... > > > Binding -1s (4): > > > Greg Stein > > > Ralph Goers > > > Roman Shaposhnik > > > Konstantin Boudnik ... > > > > Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been > > addressed. > > > > I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread. > > > > They have not been addressed. > > If I may speak for all of us: basically, we want to see podlings use CTR > rather than begin with RTC. We believe that will grow a more inclusive > community, which is one of the more serious problems that podlings tend to > run into. > > In this case, the podling is explicitly doing RTC, so we -1'd its entrance > to the ASF. > > Cheers, > -g >
