On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:34:49 -0400
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > cf. http://nagoya.apache.org/poi/news/
>
> POI News page is hit roughly a dozen times an hour, which is actually far
> more often than I would have imagined. I haven't looked to see how many of
> those hits are
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote
> > For example, what if we had an RSS aggregator and RSS feeds from
> > different projects? Or what if we had a portal site where people could
> > customize their view?
> Strongly agree. This is what I wanted to talk @ infrastructure
> mailing list.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:23:00 -0400
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, what if we had an RSS aggregator and RSS feeds from
> different projects? Or what if we had a portal site where people could
> customize their view?
Strongly agree. This is what I wanted to talk @ infr
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
"Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you think that the quietness of [EMAIL PROTECTED] is due to the TLP
> > expansion?
> No, I think its due to the fact that Jakarta is (IMHO) a group of
> communities that often have overlapping members
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> Do you think that the quietness of [EMAIL PROTECTED] is due to the TLP
> expansion?
No, I think its due to the fact that Jakarta is (IMHO) a group of
communities that often have overlapping memberships, not a community
itself. The TLP migration didn'
Jochen,
With respect to your comments regarding Community, many of us have never
worked on a code project with one of the other folks here, but we are all
part of a Community; the Apache Community. I have more in common with some
of the HTTPd developers than with many other Jakarta contributors d
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > I think that you are raising an orthogonal issue. You are talking about
> > wanting to be able to keep up with the ASF more easily and effectively.
> I agree, that this topic *can* be ortogonal. However, currently it isn't,
> as you well know.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:05:26 +0200
> > From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] P
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:05:26 +0200
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] PMC Vote to incubate Directory Project
>
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Sam,
>
> AFAIK, software-grant.txt is it. The license-grant appears related to the
> original license grant for the ASF.
>
> Seems to me that the software grant ought to be PDF'd nicely like the
> others, and put along side the CLA, so that outside projects have it read
Sam,
AFAIK, software-grant.txt is it. The license-grant appears related to the
original license grant for the ASF.
Seems to me that the software grant ought to be PDF'd nicely like the
others, and put along side the CLA, so that outside projects have it ready
to use when submitting to the Incuba
I see the ASF Contributor License on the incubator site, but I have not
found any equivalent for a Software Licence Grant. Nor do I see any
such in the incubator or committers CVS. I have found
software-grant.txt, license-grant.pdf, and license-grant.txt in the
foundation CVS.
Can we pick on
Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>>correct and by design. part of the purpose of the incubator is to
>>make sure new projects fit into our technical and cultural framework.
>>assigning the mentoring process to a member, who has become a member
>>by virtue of demonstratin
our current user/ dev lists had about 24 messages yesterday, evenly
split between the two lists. that's not an unusual amount of traffic,
but currently some days go by without much traffic on either list.
cheers,
andy
> -Original Message-
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If
I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a
member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best
intent - it is excluding n
+1, though I'd really appreciate it if people would stop proposing
votes on individuals in public, and further that the results on voting
for a new chair be declared effective or defunct so that I can start
asking the right person to manage these votes and announce a decision
when one has been reac
+1
On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Davanum Srinivas is an ASF member and an ASF officer and chair of the
web services PMC. He is very interested in the incubation of the
WSRP4J and Pluto podlings.
I would like to see him included in the incubator PMC. Let me star
Davanum Srinivas is an ASF member and an ASF officer and chair of the
web services PMC. He is very interested in the incubation of the WSRP4J
and Pluto podlings.
I would like to see him included in the incubator PMC. Let me start
things off with my: +1.
- Sam Ruby
--
The fact that there needs to be a shepherd from the Incubator PMC is
out of question.
No it isn't. The fact that the incubator PMC has become an old-boys
club of absentees is a disgrace. That isn't why we have PMCs.
That isn't what project management is about. We have people who are
itching to
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> Given a policy that equates to an exclusion of Apache
> contributors - they needs to be some form of accountability by members
> towards non-members on matters concerning incubation.
i forgot to add: this is not a democracy. it is a meritocracy.
--
#kenP-)}
K
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If
> I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a
> member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best
> intent - it is excluding non-members from sponsor
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> I still believe that the Incubation PMC doesn't make any sense at all.
oh, please, let's not start another flamewar about whether it's
needed or not. it's here; can we please just deal with it and make it
work as well as possible?
> The incubation PMC is seen by man
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 06:27 PM, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:29:16 -0400
(Subject: Re: [VOTE] New Chair (Re: cvs commit : incubator STATUS))
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally, I think it would be almost obscenely ironic
if the Incubator, which is
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 14:05 Europe/Rome, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
the members came to consensus agreeing that project umbrellas are a
pain in the ass and a PMC should be as close as possible to the code
it develops, as to increase the ability to do proper lega
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 14:35 Europe/Rome, Sam Ruby wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
2) Problems in the Avalon community that the jakarta PMC was unaware
of (there was not Avalon representation in that PMC at that time)
There was Avalon representation in the Jakarta PMC at that time.
who?
--
... and, to whom is the ASF Member accountable?
In all contexts, to himself/herself, but if you mean in terms of ASF related
behavior, that would be governed by our Bylaws and policies. To imply that
ASF Members are not accountable would be a horrid stretch.
I am specific asking this in the
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 13:56 Europe/Rome, Rodent of Unusual Size
wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Hence, if the sponsor, as we said, shall be an Apache member, he is
already legally "safe", and does not need to be on the PMC. I doubt
that
an Apache member that does his first incubation is k
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>> actually, i can see a point in mentors/shepherds being on the pmc: they
>> should be aware of procedural and policy discussions and decisions, and
>> be able to provide input on how such will affect their podlings.
>
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
2) Problems in the Avalon community that the jakarta PMC was unaware of
(there was not Avalon representation in that PMC at that time)
There was Avalon representation in the Jakarta PMC at that time.
- Sam Ruby
---
In case someone wonders why I won't be replying to mails, is that till
Monday I'll be on a wedding anniversary trip.
:-D
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
--
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 10:08 Europe/Rome, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Even if all Jakarta projects get top-level (which I doubt), Jakarta
as a community can still remain. It is a place where Java developers
can get together on common issues. Jakarta doesn't have to dit
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
the members came to consensus agreeing that project umbrellas are a pain
in the ass and a PMC should be as close as possible to the code it
develops, as to increase the ability to do proper legal oversight.
[note: this notion is in *strong* contrast with this virtual
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> > Hence, if the sponsor, as we said, shall be an Apache member, he is
> > already legally "safe", and does not need to be on the PMC. I doubt that
> > an Apache member that does his first incubation is knowledge
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Hence, if the sponsor, as we said, shall be an Apache member, he is
> already legally "safe", and does not need to be on the PMC. I doubt that
> an Apache member that does his first incubation is knowledgeble as a PMC
> member that has seen more than one.
actually
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 05:21 Europe/Rome, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2003 08:42:26 AM:
It took repeated attemps to get Ant to "matriculate". And significant
effort for Avalon. James is the only project that I recall that di
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 05:21 Europe/Rome, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2003 08:42:26 AM:
It took repeated attemps to get Ant to "matriculate". And significant
effort for Avalon. James is the only project that I recall that did
it
of their own initi
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Even if all Jakarta projects get top-level (which I doubt), Jakarta as a
community can still remain. It is a place where Java developers can get
together on common issues. Jakarta doesn't have to dite, it just needs
to find it's own correct space, more about coordinati
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:39:49 +0200
Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uuhhmmm. Not sure but I think that it is reasonable to split
> > the mailing lists into user/dev/cvs from the beginning.
> All "small" projects are much better off with one single mailing list,
> where develope
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
Ah, ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding. From Nicola Ken's message, he
seems to be offering that he'll act as the PMC representative for the
project, and I'll act as project sponsor.
Then you understood me quite correctly. You are an ASF member, you can
be the sponsor.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We have not voted on any definitive resolution about this, but currently
there is an informal rule sprung out of necessity that each incubating
project should have someone from Apache that sponsors and actively works
with the project, and a shepherd from the PMC that oversees
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:27:52 +0200
Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no idea of the organisational rationale behind the desire for more
> TLP's. Personally I have serious doubts that it is a good decision: AFAIK
> any TLP is sending his chair to the board, and I do not believe
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
...
A word quite frequently used here is "community". Don't you think that
the communities of jakarta, db, or xml are worth being kept? They would
not even exist if anything were a top level project.
Even if all Jakarta projects get top-level (which I doubt), Jakarta as a
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think any ASF member that wants to be active in any part of incubation
should be immediately placed on the PMC as soon as they request it.
Non-ASF members should have to prove themselves worthy first, taking into
consideration their involvement in other ASF projects, but th
43 matches
Mail list logo
