Ahh right, of course. Thanks for the heads up.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:53 PM, David Crossley wrote:
>> Author: billgraham
>> Date: Thu Sep 9 21:33:13 2010
>> New Revision: 995581
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995581&view=rev
>> Log:
>> fixing links to chukwa site
>>
>> Modified:
>
> Author: billgraham
> Date: Thu Sep 9 21:33:13 2010
> New Revision: 995581
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995581&view=rev
> Log:
> fixing links to chukwa site
>
> Modified:
> incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/projects/chukwa.html
>
> Modified: incubator/public/trunk/site-publi
Knowing Roy he'd probably want to see them
all renamed u...@.
- Original Message
> From: Mark Struberg
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, September 9, 2010 6:31:05 PM
> Subject: Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL]
> Kitty
>to Enter the Incuba
btw, regarding consistency: some projects have a us...@a.o (plural) list,
others have u...@a.o (singular). I most certainly take the wrong one whenever I
write a mail to some u list ;)
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 9/9/10, James Carman wrote:
> From: James Carman
> Subject: Re: No dev-, user- l
On 9/9/10 9:33 PM, James Carman wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
The formation of your community is a BIG DEAL. Not something to
casually sweep under the rug.
Partitioning the community between users and devs makes it very
difficult to establish a large, viable, sustai
James Carman wrote on Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 15:33:53 -0400:
> If users are interested in the development goings-on,
> then they can subscribe to the dev list.
A standard argument against this:
Having it in the same list makes it easier to pull users in to become
developers.
> Some folks, like us
>
The dicussion of how proposals should be addressed might be a better
issue for the Wiki page on proposals.
It is off topic of this original proposal, and I vote that it be moved
to a separate thread.
We have agreed and noted to use a single mailing list for the purposes
of this proposal.
On Thu
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> ...It is obviously a call for each podling to make, so I'm simply
> recommending that all podlings consider the impact of dividing your
> community when you ask for separate dev/user lists. I believe it is
> rarely appropriate
I think this s
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> The formation of your community is a BIG DEAL. Not something to
> casually sweep under the rug.
>
> Partitioning the community between users and devs makes it very
> difficult to establish a large, viable, sustainable community.
>
> If projects a
The formation of your community is a BIG DEAL. Not something to
casually sweep under the rug.
Partitioning the community between users and devs makes it very
difficult to establish a large, viable, sustainable community.
If projects arrive at the Incubator with an already-built user
community, th
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 08:11, sebb wrote:
> On 8 September 2010 12:39, dan haywood wrote:
>
>
>
>> And another benefit of putting user traffic on the dev list is that
>> it'll give the devs exposure to any probs that regular users are having with
>> actually using the framework (ie so we can mat
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 was a veto. If the
> IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like this. If you're
> only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then sure...
> definitely no problems with that!
>
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 14:11, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman
>> wrote:
>> I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
>> slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name,
We obviously want the opinion, but I would claim we are looking for an
opinion less on aesthetics and more on whether or not the incubator or the
board would have technical objections to this name choice. Would this
choice prevent graduation, for instance (in which case a -1 is certainly
warranted
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman wrote:
> I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
> slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then
> fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for an
Not only did we ask, we've asked more than once.
We're going that extra mile to call a vote to resolve this issue
specifically because there seems to be a wide range of opinion as to whether
the name is acceptable to the incubator, and by implication, the board.
It's quite clear that there's also
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
> slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then
> fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside
> the podling to -1 that choice, and mig
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
>> Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
>> project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
>> IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of
On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:57 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
>
>> Grant proposed that we simply go from LCF to ACF at that time, and
>> posted accordingly to this group. He received several positive responses,
>> and only one that raised any concerns. Afte
+1 on the mailing lists issue.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Pid wrote:
> On 09/09/2010 07:15, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Just to clarify: I'm assuming you're saying "+1 to the proposal",
>> rather than to my comment. Correct?
>
> +1 indeed, to the proposal
>
> +1 actually, to the mailing list commen
There may be trademark issues with Manifold, so although it enjoys support
in the community, it may be unacceptable for that reason. Also, it was not
the actual winner of the vote, and so we do need to go through the proper
process, seems to me. If ACF is rejected, then we'll have to properly vet
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
> Grant proposed that we simply go from LCF to ACF at that time, and
> posted accordingly to this group. He received several positive responses,
> and only one that raised any concerns. After a week's delay, we presumed
> that all was well,
Th
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
> project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
> IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to
> think through these things... in o
Presumably, the PMC's job is to be the eyes and ears of the Board, so if
project is doing something wrong, the PMC should let it know. In this case,
the project specifically is asking for guidance from the PMC as to whether the
name change is acceptable to the PMC and thus to the ASF, assuming
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:32 AM, James Carman wrote:
> name=trademark
Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to
think through these thing
name=trademark
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> I'm watching the "renaming" vote thread and I find it odd that folks
> are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and
> the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything
> other than ac
Perhaps some clarification is in order, explaining where we are and how we
got here, and the procedures the podling followed to come up with the
current proposal. I especially want to address the concern that we've been
ignoring the advice of the incubator.
Here is a short history, for those unfa
I'm watching the "renaming" vote thread and I find it odd that folks
are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and
the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything
other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC
should only be relevant
I'm -1 (don't know if it's binding or not. I requested to join the
PMC, but didn't hear anything back). I think the name is too general.
Why not just choose some animal name or something like everyone else
is doing?
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After much de
I think the name is too generic and don't care for it - but as long as
its not offensive or in use elsewhere then this should be up to the
project to decide and the IPMC should stay out.
[X] +1 Change the Lucene Connector Framework to the Apache Connector Framework
Niall
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1
On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 09:31 +1000, Gav... wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 10:18 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache
> >
I'm with James on this one. Many good points have been made on this,
but we do have bigger things to worry about.
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 08:06 -0400, James Carman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:39 AM, dan haywood
> wrote:
> >
> > For the moment at least the dev community is more active (or at
32 matches
Mail list logo
