This VOTE has passed. In the tally below, Commons PMC members are
marked with *
+1 VOTES:
Giles Sadowski *
Norm Shapiro
James Carman *
Luc Maisonobe *
Thomas Neidhart
Jörg Schaible *
Bill Barker *
Henri Yandell
Ate Douma
Oliver Heger *
Siegfried Göschl
Phil Steitz *
+0 VOTES:
Bernd Eckenfels
Ott
On 1/16/16 8:18 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcome t
Hi folks,
as already mentioned by Oliver - we will miss you :-)
+1 (non-binding)
Have fun as TLP
Siegfried Goeschl
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Von: "Oliver Heger"
An: "Commons Developers List"
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Januar 2016 21:25:34
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Form a s
+1
I assume this step is beneficial for [math]. Here in commons we may miss
you.
Oliver
Am 16.01.2016 um 16:18 schrieb Phil Steitz:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming
+0 since I'm not active in MATH
Stefan
On 2016-01-16, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing i
2016-01-16 16:18 GMT+01:00 Phil Steitz :
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcom
+1
Ate
On 2016-01-16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote:
The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
about doing it. Votes, please. All are welco
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. Al
+1
On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please.
+1
Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcome to vote.
>
> [
+0
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 16/01/2016 16:18, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, pl
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM wrote:
>
> Not sure whether I'm allowed to vote. But if I am: +1
>
> Norman Shapiro
>
>
Norman, you're a member of the Commons community. You are *definitely*
allowed to vote. The Commons PMC doesn't discourage non-PMC members from
voting. Take a look at th
On 01/16/2016 04:18 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. All are welco
On 1/16/16 3:41 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, wrote:
>
>> Phil Steitz writes:
>>> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
>>> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
>>> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, w
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, wrote:
> Phil Steitz writes:
> >The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> >therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> >TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> >about doing it. Vot
Le 16/01/2016 16:18, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please. All are welco
+0 I am OK with this.
What benefits does being a TLP get over a commons-subproject? -- H
On 16 January 2016 at 09:49, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> On 16.01.16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> > [X] +0 I am OK with this
> > [ ] -0 OK, but...
> > [ ] -1 I oppose this
On 16.01.16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote:
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> [X] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
Bye, Thomas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.a
+1
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:19 AM Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it. Votes, please.
+0 I am OK with this
Otmar
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 5:46 PM, wrote:
> Phil Steitz writes:
>>The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
>>therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
>>TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to
Phil Steitz writes:
>The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
>therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
>TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
>about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcome to vote.
>
>[ ] +1 I am
+0
(I would prefer to not see the traffic on the list)
Von: Phil Steitz
Gesendet: Samstag, 16. Januar 2016 16:19
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]
The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
therefore to put the proposal to
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:18:55 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
about doing it. Votes, please. All are
The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like
therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcome to vote.
[ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
[
24 matches
Mail list logo
