On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 23:53, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
>> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
>> PMC.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:47 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr."
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
It is clear that
On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>>
>> On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Sch
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> This is getting sillier by the moment...
I don't care for these kinds of statements. Please try to keep the
conversation civil.
Regards,
Alan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: g
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
> PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel
> v
Peter Karman wrote on 1/30/12 8:51 PM:
> Apache Lucy PPMC vote thread:
>
> http://s.apache.org/uot
>
> +1 Marvin Humphrey*+
> +1 Peter Karman*
> +1 Chris Mattmann*+
> +1 Chris Hostetter*+
> +1 David E. Wheeler*
> +1 Dan Markham*
>
> * indicates Lucy PPMC member
>
Hello,
Release candidate 1 for Apache Lucy (incubating) version 0.3.0 can
be found at:
http://people.apache.org/~karpet/apache-lucy-incubating-0.3.0-rc1/
See the CHANGES file at the top level of the archive for information about the
content of this release.
This candidate was assembled acco
- Original Message -
> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>
> On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>
>>> From: W
On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>>
>> On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote
- Original Message -
> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>
> On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 30,
Jukka-
Great, thanks. Using this method, I get a file layout similar to:
giraph-0.1-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz
NOTICE (without appended text for dep1 and dep2)
LICENSE (without appended text for dep1 and dep2)
bin/
lib/
dep1.jar
dep2.jar
giraph.jar
On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr."
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of hav
On 1/30/2012 7:41 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Lemme get this straight: a person who makes a class-action
> veto against a whole swath of people should have those votes
> upheld to protect that person from the tyranny of the majority?
No. Joe, take a break. Then come back, and reread both threads,
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
>> authority over personnel matters makes little s
Lemme get this straight: a person who makes a class-action
veto against a whole swath of people should have those votes
upheld to protect that person from the tyranny of the majority?
This is getting sillier by the moment...
- Original Message -
> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
> To: genera
On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
> PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel
> votes are
+1
I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage
simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corporate concerns masked
otherwise). People have said in the past, "you should have veto so you're
not forced to work with somebody you dislike." I respond, "grow up. we w
+1 -C
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:07 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>
>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
>> autho
+1 from me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:07 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
> PMC. Therefore I propose we
It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel
votes are by straight majority consensus, iow no vetoes allowe
> > I need to say that your [Jukka] work here is great. Thanks.
+1
> one doesn't need to be a PMC chair to invest some time in podling review and
> followup. :-)
:-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubs
The Apache Rave (Incubating) team is pleased to announce the immediate
availability of the Rave 0.7-INCUBATING Alpha release.
Apache Rave is a new web and social mashup engine. It will provide an
out-of-the-box, as well as extendible, lightweight Java platform to
host, serve and manage OpenSocial,
On 30/01/12 17:32, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Jena
When can I vote on your graduation?
Jena's report is already signed off on the wiki: [*]
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2012
"The project is discussing graduation.
Plan:
* Graduation preparation
(checking, drafting the scope/ch
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> what you currently do in the incubator is just an amazing job. I would
> have nominated you for serving as an incubator chair, but it seems
> another project has already got you. As I can not nominate you, I need
> to say that your
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> VCL
>>
>> What's the status with the issue of university approval of the CLAs?
>
> Brain freeze on my part. What issue are you speaking of?
>From the November report
(http://wiki.
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> VCL
>
> What's the status with the issue of university approval of the CLAs?
Brain freeze on my part. What issue are you speaking of?
> How diverse is your currently active committer-base?
It's improving. A new committer was added a few w
Jukka,
what you currently do in the incubator is just an amazing job. I would
have nominated you for serving as an incubator chair, but it seems
another project has already got you. As I can not nominate you, I need
to say that your work here is great. Thanks.
Cheers
Christian
On Mon, Jan 30, 2
Hi,
The deadline for podlings to submit their February reports is already
in two days since the ASF board meeting is scheduled for Feb 15th.
I spent a few moments reviewing the November reports and related
information of all the projects scheduled to report in February
(excluding new projects on
Jukka Zitting wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 17:20:41 +0100:
> Their next status report is due in March; looking forward
> to a summary then.
They're free to send an out-of-cycle report in February if they
want to...
-
To unsubs
Hi,
Some further followup on this.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> 2008-08-19 PhotArk
>>
>> S: Zero recent activity.
>> R: Terminate.
>
> I contacted photark-dev
Done. Thanks for catching this!
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:58 PM, David Crossley wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Not sure that I understand your statement. The site was updated, no?
>
> This page: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html
> is generated from site-author/pod
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> I'll see if I can come up with a patch with edits along the lines
> described above.
See [1] for a proposed patch, and [2] for the output.
My idea is to collect the points about the rationale of the guide up
into the introduction sect
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
>> ...I just realize something not clear from this proposal: are we *only*
>> talking
>> about the Incubator PMC Chair here, or is this a proposal for every PMC
>> Chair?
>> I presumed
>-Original Message-
>From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:21 AM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Regular rotation PMC chair
>
>On 30 January 2012 13:00, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>>-Original Message-
On 30 January 2012 13:01, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
>> Hey Robert,
>
> Leo :-)
>
> (Great to hear from you again)
>
>> Thanks for this; it was obviously a lot of work!
>
> A parting gift to the Incubator :-)
As a parting gift to you then..
On 30 January 2012 13:00, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
>>Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:30 AM
>>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Regular rotation PMC chair
>>
>>On Mon, Jan 30, 201
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> Hey Robert,
Leo :-)
(Great to hear from you again)
> Thanks for this; it was obviously a lot of work!
A parting gift to the Incubator :-)
Robert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>-Original Message-
>From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
>Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:30 AM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Regular rotation PMC chair
>
>On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
>> ...I just realize somethin
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
> ...I just realize something not clear from this proposal: are we *only*
> talking
> about the Incubator PMC Chair here, or is this a proposal for every PMC
> Chair?
> I presumed (and propose) the latter, but maybe that wasn't the intend (yet)..
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>> wrote:
On Jan 29, 2012, at 6:18 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
>
On 01/30/2012 10:17 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 30 January 2012 09:11, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
...2) Fixed election schedule: On some schedule (e.g. annually),
nominations are opened, including potentially the current chair, and a
vot
Hey Robert,
Thanks for this; it was obviously a lot of work! I like the word
picks, flow and style of this guide a lot. There's a lot to read here
and some new stuff to learn for me -- I confess I've been ignoring as
much about trademarks as I can until a time comes up when I actually
have a need
On 30 January 2012 09:11, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> ...2) Fixed election schedule: On some schedule (e.g. annually),
>> nominations are opened, including potentially the current chair, and a
>> vote takes place...
>
> +1 to this op
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> ...2) Fixed election schedule: On some schedule (e.g. annually),
> nominations are opened, including potentially the current chair, and a
> vote takes place...
+1 to this option.
-Bertrand
---
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 08:31:50 +:
>> Brand would be satisfied by - say - a profession trademark search
>
> [citation needed]
I'm not will to cite out of context. Please read all the archives.
Robert
--
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 08:33:38 +:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>> > Jukka Zitting wrote on Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 23:47:38 +0100:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 08:33:38 +:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> > Jukka Zitting wrote on Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 23:47:38 +0100:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> wrote:
> >> > Please note
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 08:31:50 +:
> Brand would be satisfied by - say - a profession trademark search
[citation needed]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For addi
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote on Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 23:47:38 +0100:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> wrote:
>> > Please note that I didn't invent this process. I would have preferred
>> > something much simpler
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> wrote:
>> Please note that I didn't invent this process. I would have preferred
>> something much simpler. I just documented the recommendations of the
>> brand team.
>
> Was
50 matches
Mail list logo
