APACHE INCUBATOR PROJECT STATUS: -*-indented-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/03/13 02:15:43 $]
The Incubation Process
==
Identify the project to be incubated:
-- Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist
and check w
"Howard M. Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anybody know what license DocBook and DocBook XSL is released
> under? I couldn't find it.
It's in the README inside of the xsl tarball:
8-<---cut-here-8-<---
Copyright
-
I'm working on some documentation on using cvs, and similar stuff, ie
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jakarta-avalon-site/src/
documentation/content/xdocs/cvs.xml?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/xml
it seems to me it might be a good idea to stuff this material in
incubator. If y'all ag
Don't cry to me about ignored bits if you can't bother to use CVS.
In that case forget it. I won't waste my time. There is no middle
ground.
Obviously you have more of a passion for quitting than you do for
making progress. Why did you volunteer to be the shepherd?
I think the incubator is a
Anybody downloading the code will have to obtain a royalty-free
license from RSA to use it, separate from whatever other license
applies (i.e. the ASL). Period. Unless the ASF talks them into
changing their mind, that's the story. No ambiguity intended.
Will it be royalty-free forever and ever?
> There is the one I don't believe. By their statement it did not say
> that developers using the software would have to obtain a seperate
> license that they "INTEND" to be free, then on the next line it kind of
> contradicted that. IANAL but I see this as WAY more threatening than
> LGPL se
Awesome! Glad to know it.
Update to my comment:
The OpenSAML proponents took the comments received here and formed the
constructive action of emailing RSA about
addressing our concerns and are waiting for a reply ;-). It appears
like they're keeping their eye on the ball.
Better?
-Andy
Dav
I certainly disagree that I didn't address the issue. Your issue was that you didn't believe the RSA license (that may never get
released, the way things are going ;-) would be royalty-free, which simply disregards the history of the discussion with RSA that
you weren't part of. It will be, wheth
FYI, Here's the message that i sent to Rob @ RSA on Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:38:57 -0800
(PST). No
reply from him yet. I HAVE NOT DROPPED IT YET...
--- Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:38:57 -0800 (PST)
> From: Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: I
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 12/03/2003 22.02:
Greg Stein wrote:
I've said before: I don't think the Incubator gets to vote on accepting a
project or not.
...
so a project can enter either because it was sponsored by an
existing asf project that commits to provide a home for it on
emergence
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> I've said before: I don't think the Incubator gets to vote on accepting a
> project or not. Some other ASF PMC says "we want this project to migrate
> into the ASF" [after whatever vote] and sends the project to the Incubator.
> The Incubator then processes it. Upon completio
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:57:04AM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> To Accept a project:
>
> 1. Another PMC must sign off on it but can't vote a project in. (What
> does that mean exactly? A head nod?)
> 2. The Incubator PMC must then vote to accept the project.
I've said before: I don't think
I've redone the Tapestry code audit for March, along with notes about what
changed, and why, since February.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Mar2003
Although I was blindsided by the LPGL constraints that came out in the last
few days, I believe Tapestry is fully in co
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 12/03/2003 20.43:
Jeff Turner wrote:
...
PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
disinterested Incubator PMC.
that was tried. it failed in practice.
I'd like to point out a thing. Incubation still means different things
to different peopl
> It seemed to me that OpenSAML had issues best addressed by the board
> with some advice and consent by the members. The division of
> responsibility should be clarified here. One board member did respond.
> The proponent seemed to argue the point without addressing the issue, and
> I think it
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> Second, please resend any questions to this list that you believe
> the PMC failed to respond to. It is possible we simply missed it,
> and also possible that some of the PMC didn't feel it was their
> jurisdiction.
and that some, though passionately interested, had real-
Jeff Turner wrote:
> Feh.
>
> Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
> practice.
>
> PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
> disinterested Incubator PMC.
that was tried. it failed in practice.
> I feel I'm stating the blindingly obvious. Is
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> How, exactly, is Tapestry ever expected to exit the proposal stage?
this is two days old, and i am very far behind in incubator mail.
my impression was that tapestry was past 'proposal', though,
having been accepted into the incubator. shall i defer further
comment u
That's 'clueless'. 'clewless' would be a sail w/o the part that is in
the bottom front.
:D
geir
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 04:43 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
life has been excessively interesting (in the chinese-proverb
sense) for the last few months, and i have been unable to
partic
> > [..] I
> > promise to answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
> > opportunities arise. [ .. ]
> Second, please resend any questions to this list that you believe
> the PMC failed to respond to. It is possible we simply missed it,
> and also possible that some of the PMC
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 07:11 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
[excellent checklist snipped]
- Who tracks down things in the status file?
incubator/projects/tapestry/STATUS
Anyone who posts a patch to this list or has commit access to that
respository.
As Incubator
- We need mor
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 11:29 PM, Paul Hammant wrote:
Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up
(though like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I
promise to answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
opportunities arise. I'm on the Av
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 03:05 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Once both of those are resolved I'll change that to a +1 not before.
While I agree that the incubator in its current form has been a
wasteful excercise. The incubation period itself proved useful in
that it exposed issues that I
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 02:18 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Anyway, Tapestry has *not* been incubated, at least not by the
Incubator. It has been followed by Dion and Andy (whom I thank BTW),
that are not Incubator PMCers. I don't see how something that we have
not done goes to our demer
At 4:11 PM +0100 3/12/03, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>* Copyright
>
> - Have the papers that transfer the rights to the ASF been recieved?
> - Is fax sufficient?
> - Who sent what?
>
>* verification of IP rights (meaning the ASF can distribute the code)
>
> - What does this exactly mean WRT the pr
At 11:54 PM -0800 3/11/03, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>But to call it a failure? That's too harsh. I think there are certainly
>problems in the basic model. You have a bunch of highly-motivated people
>associated with incoming projects. On the "other side of the fence" you have
>a bunch of unrelated volun
Geez, a night and half a day, and I get loooads of mails and rants on
the list. Ok, let's see to get some order in it, and be constructive.
First of all:
Roy T. Fielding wrote, On 12/03/2003 3.26:
>
> -1. I see no evidence that the task has been accomplished.
> Accomplish
> the task and then th
Again, IMO, I don't see the Incubator in the role you're thinking of. If the
Incubator is mostly about logistics rather than evaluation, then there is no
potential for rejection. They simply won't hit the Incubator if there wasn't
a sponsor PMC to say "we'll take them when you're done".
There
Infrastructure should have its own request tracker, but that is a completely
different story...
bugzilla.
Sander
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To Accept a project:
1. Another PMC must sign off on it but can't vote a project in. (What
does that mean exactly? A head nod?)
2. The Incubator PMC must then vote to accept the project.
However the board/etc have stated a preference to not have
Uber-projects. Therefore the above model seems
Don't cry to me about ignored bits if you can't bother to use CVS.
In that case forget it. I won't waste my time. There is no middle
ground. I think the incubator is a waste. I try and work on something
constructive and you say "it must be done my way or it will be ingored"
well.. . In th
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:19:49PM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
>...
> Is there then any reason why project can't 'incubate' on non-Apache
> hardware? Sourceforge?
It doesn't sound as clean, but possibly. I'd be concerned with the oversight
that the Incubator needs to apply while getting everything
> From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:29 AM
>> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:19 AM
>
>>> With all due respect Roy, thats not fair. They've asked, they've
>>> begged, both here and the incubator
> From: Paul Hammant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:28 AM
> Maybe part of my offer to chair swap with someone on the PMC, was
> perhaps to give anyone the opportunity to step down. Anyone who may lack
> the time to do anything for incubator presently
Having t
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:21 AM
> No, accepting the donation of new code has to come though incubator.
> Unfortunately, the incubator PMC currently consists of the same people
> who have over-volunteered their time for all of the other pr
Greg,
...
Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up (though
like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I promise to
answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
opportunities arise. I'm on the Avalon PMC and have been an Apache
committer for abo
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:19 AM
>> With all due respect Roy, thats not fair. They've asked, they've
>> begged, both here and the incubator.
>
> I was talking about incubator. I notice that somebody forwarded their
> request to infras
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:29:02AM +, Paul Hammant wrote:
>...
> Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up (though
> like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I promise to
> answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
> opportunities arise.
> From: Paul Hammant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:29 AM
> >The vote on AltRMI received only one vote here (Nicola Ken's), that I saw. I
> >may have missed others.
> >
> >
> There was a very low vote, yes. The project is quite active though.
>
> >This lack of a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:54:02PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
...
> From a legal standpoint, the Incubator was created to ensure that we had our
> i's dotted and t's crossed. Beyond that, I have little opinion. IMO, the
> Incubator is more about process and checklists, than warm fuzzies and
> "teachi
40 matches
Mail list logo
