On 7/11/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Board meetings are another case entirely, but having never listened in
on one, I don't know how practical they'd be to hold via other means.
I suspect it would be difficult though.
Any one can dial in to the Board meetings. It's honestly no
On 7/11/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> "IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g.
> Q&A between available committers and interested users/contributors),
> although such sessions should be archived an
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
"IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g.
Q&A between available committers and interested users/contributors),
although such sessions should be archived and made available to those
not able to attend. However, using IR
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
"IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g.
Q&A between available committers and interested users/contributors),
although such sessions should be archived and made available to those
not able to attend. However, using I
I'll wait to see if there's anymore feedback on Cliff's wording, then
will add this to the committers guide.
-jean
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> On 7/11/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > below) and other recent threads, here's what I would propose also be
>> > doc'd:
>> >
>> >
> also no dev/arch decissions is mentioned.
Just to be clear, this proposed piece of text was meant to supplement
what we have now that categorically excludes off-list decision making.
yes. What I tried to say is: "I like that the *do no dev/arch
decissions* offline is mentioned in your text"
On 7/11/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> below) and other recent threads, here's what I would propose also be
> doc'd:
>
> "IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g.
> Q&A between available committers and interested users/contributors),
> although such
below) and other recent threads, here's what I would propose also be
doc'd:
"IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g.
Q&A between available committers and interested users/contributors),
although such sessions should be archived and made available to those
not able to at
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Jean-
>
>
>> Given this paragraph in the committers guide [1]:
>>
>> > Everything -- but everything-- inside the Apache world occurs or is
>> reflected in email. As some people say, 'If it isn't in my email, it
>> didn't happen.'
>>
>> Would adding this sentence to th
More explicit documentation is usually a good thing, and having clear
docs stating that decisions must only take place on the mailing lists
is no exception...however, that's not really what this thread was
about.
Most of this thread has been about what non-decision-making role
should IRC play, if
Jean-
Given this paragraph in the committers guide [1]:
> Everything -- but everything-- inside the Apache world occurs or is reflected
in email. As some people say, 'If it isn't in my email, it didn't happen.'
Would adding this sentence to the end help?
Decisions only get made on Apache
On 7/11/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given this paragraph in the committers guide [1]:
> Everything -- but everything-- inside the Apache world occurs or is reflected
in email. As some people say, 'If it isn't in my email, it didn't happen.'
Would adding this sentence to the
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> Any off-list communication is a potential problem, not just IRC.
>
> sure. but IRC is much more a "problem" than IM.
> IM *mostly* is peer-peer "chat". IRC a *group* is involved.
Given this paragraph in the committers guide [1]:
> Everything -- but everything-- insi
Ted Leung wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > We should use our judgment to ensure a collaborative environment
> > without undue overhead. But it would be unfair, for example, to
> > deliberately hold a vote when someone whom you know is opposed
> > is going to be off-line.
> I was just asking
On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I guess the bigger question is whether we ought to change the
72 hour guideline for the foundation as a whole, or make
incuabator votes a clearly noted exception.
We should use our judgment to ensure a collaborative environment
without
un
Any off-list communication is a potential problem, not just IRC.
sure. but IRC is much more a "problem" than IM.
IM *mostly* is peer-peer "chat". IRC a *group* is involved.
btw. 404 for:
http://incubator.apache.org/howtoparticipate.html
-jean
---
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> > Someone did point out that dev traffic is falling off while commit
>> > traffic is same or increasing.
>>
>> Yep -- and since asking about the Synapse perspective, I haven't seen
>> a persuasive argument that IRC has been a particularly positive thing
>> for them. T
> Someone did point out that dev traffic is falling off while commit
> traffic is same or increasing.
Yep -- and since asking about the Synapse perspective, I haven't seen
a persuasive argument that IRC has been a particularly positive thing
for them. The key issue could be whether IRC is used a
On 7/11/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This thread may be dead/resolved, in which case just ignore me.
It was only "mostly-dead"...but you've raised some good points that I
agree with.
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> On 6/23/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The use o
Ted Leung wrote:
> In this case, we had several weeks of discussion on Heraldry,
> including some F2F conversations at ApacheCon EU, so 72 hours
> doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Nor me.
> I guess the bigger question is whether we ought to change the
> 72 hour guideline for the foundation as
On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
In this case, we had several weeks of discussion on Heraldry,
including some F2F
conversations at ApacheCon EU, so 72 hours doesn't seem like a big
deal to me.
If people want to extend the voting period, I've no problem with
that. I guess the
On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:50:44PM +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 7/10/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 12:50 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I'd prefer a bit more time .. like the time for graduation etc. - these
are BIG decisions and unlike code decisions hard to revert. As such I
cool!
On 7/11/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
If anyone who uses Maven is interested I can whip off a plugin to
create a DOAP file from a POM so that they don't have to maintain
both files. For any elements missing in the POM that might be
required (don't know, haven't looked)
Not that I get a vote...but I'd +1 it also.
Danese
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like
to call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator.
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so
+1
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I wouldn't do it over a week, especially a long weekend. And if very few
PMC members have voted, I might post a reminder to vote rather than close a
vote with a minimum of voters.
--- Noel
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:50:44PM +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/10/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 7/10/06, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
> >> the vote to close, so please v
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like
to call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator.
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
t
It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like
to call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator.
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
the vote to close, so please vote by 11:59PST on Thursday July 13th.
The current proposal is
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like
to call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator.
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
the vote to close, so please vote by 11:59PST on
+1
(and what he said applies to me too)
Leo
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:41:20AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> +1
>
> (And I'll note now that I'm interested in participating, although can't
> commit the time to be a mentor right now.)
>
> Ted Leung wrote:
> > It seems like the discussion on
This thread may be dead/resolved, in which case just ignore me.
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> On 6/23/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The use of e-mail as the primary means for communication is part of ASF
>> policy and philosophy, and we can certainly learn lessons from
>> projects tha
David N. Welton wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> ... an idea and
>> community ...
>
>> i was wondering whether we might widen the general incubator list to
>> include
>> ideas for new projects provided that they are prefixed by [idea] in the
>> subject so that anyone who's not interested
+1
(And I'll note now that I'm interested in participating, although can't
commit the time to be a mentor right now.)
Ted Leung wrote:
> It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like to
> call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator.
>
> In keeping with Apache p
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 12:50 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I'd prefer a bit more time .. like the time for graduation etc. - these
are BIG decisions and unlike code decisions hard to revert. As such I
think we should not rush things.
On 7/5/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what i came to pull together the material for the proposal template, i
found that it didn't really fit into the annotation template format
originally conceived. so, here is a first draft of a guide for proposals
containing a template. i
On 7/10/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
> the vote to close, so please vote by 11:59PST on Thursday July 13th.
>
(this duration seems just a little b
On 7/11/06, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 7/11/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If anyone who uses Maven is interested I can whip off a plugin to
> create a DOAP file from a POM so that they don't have to maintain
> both files.
That would be nice!
+1
- rober
Hi,
On 7/11/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If anyone who uses Maven is interested I can whip off a plugin to
create a DOAP file from a POM so that they don't have to maintain
both files.
That would be nice!
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
If anyone who uses Maven is interested I can whip off a plugin to
create a DOAP file from a POM so that they don't have to maintain
both files. For any elements missing in the POM that might be
required (don't know, haven't looked) the information can be placed
in standard properties
41 matches
Mail list logo
