Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Spot into the Apache Incubator

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Gangumalla, Uma wrote: > BTW, there were 5 binding votes. Oops. Sorry for the miscount! I mistakenly searched for "Gangumalla" rather than "umamahesh" in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc, but I should have known better regardles

[RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Spot into the Apache Incubator

The vote passes, with 7 +1 votes (4 binding) and no -1 votes. +1 Jarek Jarcec Cecho (binding) +1 Gangumalla, Uma +1 Todd Lipcon (binding) +1 Tom White (binding) +1 Zheng, Kai +1 Stack (binding) +1 Debo Dutta Thanks all for voting. Spot has been accepted for Incubation at Apache. Welcome Spot!

[VOTE] Accept Spot into the Apache Incubator

wick * Diego Ortiz: Intel * Sudharshan Rao PakalaSai: Cloudwick * Srinivasa Reddy: Cloudera * Alan Ross: Intel * Everardo Lopez Sandoval: Intel * Nathan Segerlind: Intel * Vartika Singh: Cloudera * Nathanael Smith: Intel * Carlos Villavicencio: Intel == Sponsors == === Champion === *

Re: [DISCUSS] Spot Incubation Proposal

elated to the currently incubating Metron > project. The documentation on both projects is relatively scarce. Do you > happen to have any insight on overlap between those two or am I completely > off here by comparing those two? > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Doug Cutting

[DISCUSS] Spot Incubation Proposal

Alan Ross: Intel * Everardo Lopez Sandoval: Intel * Nathan Segerlind: Intel * Vartika Singh: Cloudera * Nathanael Smith: Intel * Carlos Villavicencio: Intel == Sponsors == === Champion === * Doug Cutting - Cloudera === Nominated Mentors === * Brock Noland - ASF Member, phData * Jarek Ja

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Dataflow Incubator Proposal

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > As a regular english word, "beam" cannot be trademarked, by others/us. Like Windows® or Apple®? Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For ad

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Doug On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala > to the ASF Incubator. > > I'd like to call a VOTE on that

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Doug On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Chris Douglas wrote: > +1 (binding) -C > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like > to > > call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the AS

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as > wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request > attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of > a document to be available. As a direct

Re: What is "The Apache Way"?

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > I think a better analogy would be "US Culture". Yes it is as nebulous > as it gets, but the fact that US Constitution exists as a written document > makes a LOT of things WAY easier. Apache's constitution is the corporate bylaws: http://w

Re: What is "The Apache Way"?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:41 AM, David Nalley wrote: > Can a project use an external bug tracker? > Can a project use a third-parties CI system? > Can a project host their website outside of the ASF? > Can a project avoid a users mailing list and move to StackOverflow? > Can projects use github? I

Re: What is "The Apache Way"?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > So, either a lot of us are really stupid, or the Foundation as a whole has > a gap between the general principles and their application. No, we can't > have a rule book that details every particle of how to run an Apache > project, but appa

Re: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator report sign-off)

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Upayavira wrote: > I'd much rather we be clear with projects right up front, saying > something like: > > "To join the Incubator, you need one or more mentors. To get to > graduation, you will need the support of those mentors. If mentors > become unavailable, you

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > I do question the need to dissolve the IPMC Indeed. Chris' proposal is not exclusive with keeping the Incubator as it is. Folks could currently submit a resolution to the board to start a TLP and see what happens. Doug ---

Re: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Spark from the Incubator

+1 Doug On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > This is a new VOTE to decide if Apache Spark should graduate > from the Incubator. Please VOTE on the resolution pasted below > the ballot. I'll leave this VOTE open for at least 72 hours. > > Thanks! > > [ ] +1 Gr

Re: Changing moderation settings

You shouldn't need to subscribe jira to your list. Rather just 'allow' a message by using reply-all to a moderation request so that all future posts from that sender are accepted. Doug On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Chen, Pei wrote: > dev-subscribe-jira=apache@storm.incubator.apache.org

Re: IP Clearance before releasing

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > There's no whistleblower provision > for someone who thinks they see something that puts the foundation at risk > from stopping those to don't see it. > If there's a clear legal problem with a release candidate I'd expect others to acknowledge

Re: [VOTE] Accept Twill for Incubation

+1 Doug On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote: > The discussion about the Weave proposal has calmed. As the outcome of the > discussion, we have chosen a new name for the project, Twill. I would like > to call a vote for Twill to become an incubated project. > > The proposal is p

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > Who is permitted to vote is, to some extent, a community-specific thing. > However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes, and > all others are either discouraged from voting (to keep the noise down) or > else have their vote

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > I'm not sure I understand the > difference between "consensus" and "unanimous consensus". Your thoughts? The difference seems to be the quorum requirement of 3 +1 votes in the case of "consensus" but not in "unanimous consensus". They use "un

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > To me, agreeing on "the norm" is not the same as policy, especially policy > that does not allow for exceptions. I agree. Establishing whether there is a norm is a useful first step. That's what I'm trying to take. Thus far I've seen noone di

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > The thread on members@ was titled "Committer Qualifications". I asked a > question about the -1 vote on 9/7/13 and the reply I got was that > committer voting does not have vetoes, and the document at [1] also seems > to say that. I followed u

Re: Apache project bylaws

Lots of people on this list are also on members@, and, so far, none have objected to my statements. If this continues, it would indicate a lack of controversy. Doug On Oct 1, 2013 7:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > Hi, > > > I don't find the discussion on members@ that comes to this conclusion. >

Re: Apache project bylaws

I don't find the discussion on members@ that comes to this conclusion. If you cannot see members@ how do you know this? Doug On Oct 1, 2013 6:06 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > Hi, > > > I see no discrepancy between the documents you cite. The first says > > that committer votes are by consensus,

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > The whole reason this come about is because it's unclear what voting rules > are the default when voting someone in as committer. See [1] (consensus) and > [2] (majority). If -1 is a veto or not is sort of important thing to know, > and wh

Re: Voting in Committers

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > The answer I got on members@ is that [1] is not a policy document and > therefore a vote as to whether to make someone a committer defaults to > majority rules unless the TLP has voted otherwise, and a -1 vote is not a > veto unless the TLP has

[RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Storm into the Incubator

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > I'd like to call a vote to accept Storm as a new Incubator podling. This passes, with lots of +1 votes (plenty by PMC members) and no -1 votes. Thanks for votin

[VOTE] Accept Storm into the Incubator

Twitter * Andy Feng - Yahoo! * Flip Kromer - Infochimps * David Lao - Microsoft * P. Taylor Goetz - Health Market Science == Sponsors == === Champion === * Doug Cutting === Nominated Mentors === * Ted Dunning * Arvind Prabhakar * Devaraj Das * Matt Franklin * Benjamin H

Re: Moderation of report reminders

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM, sebb wrote: > So why not pre-allow all automated senders when creating the podling list? Why not pre-allow *@apache.org? Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:29 AM, ant elder wrote: > Alternatively, you could say enough is enough and to end the debate > you're going to call a vote to demonstrate i've the PMCs support - a > vote on letting ant stay on. That sounds like you're being nice, but > in fact you're being clever, becau

Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > I think it should be 3/4 majority. I agree that supermajority would be better than simple majority here. Moving to simple majority seems too radical. Over time it's more prone to building a PMC that cannot easily agree on things. If cons

Re: No more existing-TLP graduations (was: [PROPOSAL] Curator for the Apache Incubator)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Guys, this was my point a few weeks ago, and the question I posed to > the board. Did the board discuss it at the meeting, or is that part of > the board meeting happening here? Here is the comment I made in response to your question. Se

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Crunch 0.5.0 (incubating) RC0

+1 Checksums & signatures match, tests pass, licencing looks to be in order. Doug On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Josh Wills wrote: > Hello, > > This is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache > Crunch 0.5.0 (incubating). This is our third release at Apache, and it > fi

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Crunch Podling from the Incubator

+1 Doug On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Josh Wills wrote: > This is a call to graduate the Apache Crunch podling from Apache Incubator. > > Apache Crunch entered the Incubator in May of 2012. We have made > significant progress with the project since moving over to Apache. We have > ten committ

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Etch podling from Apache Incubator

+1 Doug On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Martin Veith wrote: > This is a call for vote to graduate the Apache Etch podling from Apache > Incubator. > > The Apache Etch project entered the Incubator in September 2008. > Since then it has had ups and downs but we feel ready for graduation now. >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Crunch 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

+1 RAT tests pass (as do others), checksums & sigs match. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Matthias Friedrich wrote: > Hi, > > this is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as > Apache Crunch 0.4.0 (incubating). This is the second release candidate > of our second release at Apac

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Bigtop podling from Apache Incubator

+1 Doug On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > This is a call for vote to graduate Bigtop podling from Apache Incubator > > The Apache Bigtop project entered incubator in June of 2011. Since then we > have grown the community in users and contributors, and we've made > signif

Re: [VOTE] Apache Crunch (incubating) 0.3.0 Release Candidate 1

+1 Downloaded sources, ran RAT, validated checksums. Doug On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Josh Wills wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache > Crunch 0.3.0 (incubating). This will be our first release. A vote was held > on the devel

Re: [VOTE] Accept Drill into the Apache Incubator

Otis said his vote was 'blinding', not 'binding'. Doug On Aug 11, 2012 12:28 AM, "Ted Dunning" wrote: > This vote is now closed. > > In the responses to this thread, I count 15 binding positive votes and > 4 non-binding votes. The number of positive votes increases to 17 if > you count myself (

Re: [VOTE] Accept Blur into the Apache Incubator

Directory >* https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/blur.git > * Issue Tracking >* JIRA > * Continuous Integration >* Jenkins > * Web >* http://incubator.apache.org/blur/wiki at http://wiki.apache.org > or http://cwiki.apache.org > > == Initial Commit

Re: [VOTE] Accept Crunch into the Apache Incubator

+1 Doug On 05/23/2012 11:45 AM, Josh Wills wrote: I would like to call a vote for accepting "Apache Crunch" for incubation in the Apache Incubator. The full proposal is available below. We ask the Incubator PMC to sponsor it, with phunt as Champion, and phunt, tomwhite, and acmurthy volunteeri

Re: [VOTE] CloudStack for Apache Incubator

+1 Doug On Apr 9, 2012 6:32 PM, "Kevin Kluge" wrote: > Hi All. I'd like to call for a VOTE for CloudStack to enter the > Incubator. The proposal is available at [1] and I have also included it > below. Please vote with: > +1: accept CloudStack into Incubator > +0: don't care > -1: do not ac

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flume version 1.1.0-incubating (rc1)

+1 Checksums and signatures match, tests pass, RAT finds no issues. Doug On 03/19/2012 05:46 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote: > This is the second incubator release for Apache Flume, version > 1.1.0-incubating. We are now voting on release candidate rc1. > > *** Please cast your vote within the next

Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)

On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think > that we might have had some basis to these package namespace issues. The > recent private Lucene-Commons threads show what can happen if this policy > is that hmmm liberal. Don't

Re: Thoughts on Incubator board reports

Jukka, This sounds like a great plan to me. Providing the board with a summary demonstrates that the IPMC has reviewed all of the podling reports and assessed the progress of each podling. Also including the full podling reports to the board both gives supporting evidence to the podling summarie

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator

On 02/29/2012 06:19 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: >> The class/package names are merely not being deleted. Presuming that the >> > original code was part of the inceptional code grant, one can conclude that >> > the company in question doesn't mind their namespace being used by ASF >> > projects *for th

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator

On 02/29/2012 01:33 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > No project should be allowed to graduate without solving all issues > pertaining to marks. It's a failure of the incubator in the past for > allowing other projects to do so. I'm shocked it was allowed. This is not a trademark issue. Package names ar

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator

On 02/28/2012 06:01 AM, Ate Douma wrote: > And specifically as this seems to concern compatibility support for > Cloudera own API, only needed for Cloudera customers. Sqoop was an Apache-licensed open source project at Github before it came to Apache. It's thus safe to assume that it had users wh

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator

On 02/28/2012 12:59 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > That namespace is a mark of Cloudera. Package names are not generally considered to be trademarks. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For addit

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Jukka Zitting for IPMC Chair (was Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 02/09/2012 08:39 AM, sebb wrote: > In case it's not obvious, I agree with Ross, Andrus and Marcel - I > think the current VOTE thread is invalid and should be cancelled. I don't see how it is invalid. Chris might have added more choices or invited more discussion first, but he can call a vote.

Re: [VOTE] Jukka Zitting for IPMC Chair (was Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

+1 Doug On 02/09/2012 07:16 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Hi Folks, > > OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC > chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the > running > have aligned beyond the following nominee: Jukka

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving forward

On 02/09/2012 07:42 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > 2. I wrote an Incubator deconstruction proposal here: > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal > > I still wholly believe in the proposal and that it should be implemented. > It contains a series of (potentially re

Re: PMC chair vs. reorg proposals

On 02/05/2012 11:40 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > If the board decides to go that way, I am happy to see Chris in charge > of the transition. It's not the board's decision to make. The folks in the Incubator need to decide what they as volunteers want to do. As a board member, either approach is

too much traffic here

On 02/04/2012 09:15 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > We both care about this stuff, which is why we keep replying. I'm happy > to continue to reply, so long as you are when I feel it's warranted. I've > ignored a few of them that I didn't have the energy to, but that's the point > of a mailing

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 02/02/2012 09:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board > hats on? Great too. Would be great to get opinions now > rather than have to wait. I like the simplicity of erasing the layer of management that is the Incubator. The board is a

Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes

On 01/30/2012 05:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > 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 so

comments for Incubator PMC from board

Incubator PMC, Recent reports from your PMC to the board do not appear to have been thoroughly reviewed. Prior to submitting your report to the board, the Incubator PMC should review all podling reports, note problems, and, when needed, take action. Direct podling oversight is the responsibility

Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement

On 01/03/2012 07:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > [1] "I don't see it as our place to *judge* communities. If it is a fork, > or a corporate spin-out, or a move, or brand new... All Good. " > > [2] "At Apache, all contributions are voluntary. We do not accept code > from copyright owne

Re: [VOTE] Release for Bigtop version 0.2.0-incubating

+1 Signatures and checksums look good. Rat reports no license problems. Doug On 11/02/2011 06:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > This is the second incubator release for Apache Bigtop, version > 0.2.0-incubating. > > It fixes the following issues: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Re

Re: [VOTE] S4 to join the Incubator

+1 Doug On Sep 20, 2011 1:57 PM, "Patrick Hunt" wrote: > It's been a nearly a week since the S4 proposal was submitted for > discussion. A few questions were asked, and the proposal was clarified > in response. Sufficient mentors have volunteered. I thus feel we are > now ready for a vote. > > Th

[RESULT] [VOTE] Accumulo to join the Incubator

This passes, with 20 +1 votes, plenty of them binding, and no -1 votes. Thanks to all who voted! We can now get started creating the Apache Accumulo podling. Doug On 09/09/2011 09:22 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > It's been a week since the Accumulo proposal was submitted for > discuss

[VOTE] Accumulo to join the Incubator

Keith Turner, Peterson Technology LLC * John Vines, National Security Agency * Chris Waring, National Security Agency == Sponsors == * Champion: Doug Cutting == Nominated Mentors == * Benson Margulies * Alan Cabrera * Bernd Fondermann * Owen O'Malley == S

Re: [VOTE] Release Whirr version 0.6.0-incubating

On 08/24/2011 07:09 PM, Andrei Savu wrote: > Now that the resolution was accepted by the board is no longer > possible to have a last release as an incubator project? Whirr is no longer an incubator project. Whirr can now make releases without permission from the Incubator PMC. Even if the proje

Re: [VOTE] Release for Bigtop version 0.1.0-incubating RC2

+1 Checksums & signatures are correct and RAT reports no serious problems. Doug On 08/22/2011 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > This is the first incubator release for Apache Bigtop, version > 0.1.0-incubating. > > It fixes the following issues: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote

Re: [VOTE] Graduation of the Whirr Podling

ail.gmail.com%3E > Result: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-whirr-dev/201107.mbox/%3ccabqr8u8nttkqxjerp-txnn4jljrvqyrsrqxuesjiyq2td53...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > The vote received 7 PPMC approvals, of which 3 were also IPMC members > (Patrick Hunt, Doug Cutting, and m

Re: [VOTE] Oozie to join the Incubator

+1 Doug On 06/29/2011 12:10 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote: > Hi All, > > The discussion about Oozie proposal is settling down. Therefore I would like > to > initiate a vote to accept Oozie as an Apache Incubator project. > > The latest proposal is pasted at the end and it could be found in the wik

Re: [VOTE] Accept Bigtop for incubation

+1 Doug On 06/17/2011 07:15 PM, Tom White wrote: > As there are no active discussions on the proposal thread, I would > like to initiate a vote to accept Bigtop as an Apache Incubator > project. > > The proposal is available at > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BigtopProposal?action=recall&r

Re: [VOTE] MRUnit entry into the incubator

+1 Doug On 03/01/2011 05:16 PM, Eric Sammer wrote: > All: > > Discussions from the [PROPOSAL] thread seem to have tapered off so I'd like > to call a vote on accepting MRUnit into the incubator. I'm re-pasting the > proposal for simplicity. We'll leave the vote open for 72 hours. > > Thanks! >

Re: Voting waiting period

On 02/15/2011 03:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > I like it when people not on the committee take > part in votes and I think we should encourage it. As Hen said in "were > in the recruiting business" [1]. My pet peeve is people putting > "binding" on their vote - it tells non-PMC-members "you're vo

Re: [VOTE] Accept Lucene.Net for incubation

+1 Doug On 01/26/2011 10:05 PM, Troy Howard wrote: All, Since posting the Lucene.Net Incubator proposal announcement on Jan 12th, we now have three mentors signed up and would like to call a vote to accept Lucene.Net into the Apache Incubator. The proposal is included below and can also be fo

Re: [VOTE][PROPOSAL] EasyAnt incubator

+1 Doug On 01/24/2011 09:14 AM, Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be sponsored by the Ant PMC for a new "EasyAnt" podling. The proposal is available on the wiki at and included below: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/EasyAntProposal [] +

Re: [PROPOSAL] Mesos Project

+1 Doug On 12/13/2010 02:08 PM, Matei Zaharia wrote: We would like to propose Mesos as an incubator proposal. Mesos is a resource manager for clusters that provides resource sharing and isolation across distributed applications like Apache Hadoop, MPI, or web applications. It started as a re

Re: [VOTE] Accept Wave into the incubator

+1 Doug On 11/29/2010 10:52 PM, Dan Peterson wrote: Hi everyone, Please vote on the acceptance of Wave into the Apache incubator. The proposal is available at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WaveProposal (for your convenience, a snapshot is also copied below) The earlier discussion thread

Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenNLP for incubation

+1 Sounds like a great project! Doug On 11/19/2010 01:48 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote: Hi, lets vote on the acceptance of the OpenNLP Project for incubation at the Apache Incubator. The proposal is on the wiki http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenNLPProposal and a copy is included below. The disc

Re: [VOTE] Release Whirr version 0.2.0-incubating

+1 Checksums & sigs are correct. Licensing looks good. Doug On 11/10/2010 08:59 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote: This is the second incubator release for Apache Whirr, version 0.2.0-incubating. PPMC release vote thread: http://markmail.org/message/kdfnohhod6wdrqaz The issues fixed for 0.2.0-incubatin

Re: [VOTE] Thrift 0.5.0 RC1

+1 Looks good to me! Doug On 10/04/2010 09:47 AM, Bryan Duxbury wrote: I propose that we accept http://people.apache.org/~bryanduxbury/thrift-0.5.0-rc1.tar.gzas the official Thrift 0.5.0 release. I produced this tarball by check

Re: [VOTE] Release Whirr version 0.1.0-incubating

+1 Checked that src tarball has a correct signature & md5sum. Also ran RAT over the extracted sources and the licensing looks good. Doug On 09/14/2010 11:19 AM, Tom White wrote: This is the first incubator release for Apache Whirr, version 0.1.0-incubating. We already received one binding I

Re: [PROPOSAL] Gora to enter Incubator

+1 Sounds like a great project. Doug On 09/13/2010 06:10 AM, Enis Soztutar wrote: Hi all, We would like to announce the Proposal for Gora, an ORM for Colum Stores, for the Apache Incubation. We believe that Gora can find a nice home at Apache. Wiki of the proposal can be found at http://wiki.

Re: Thrift 0.3.0 RC6

+1 Checked signature, checksum and ran RAT. All looked good. Doug On 07/28/2010 12:28 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote: All, RC5 went out to gene...@incubator and met some resistance. I've make fixes to the branch and I believe we're ready to go again. I propose we accept RC6 as the official version

Re: [VOTE] Move Lucy to the Incubator

a Lucene, began as an ambitious, from-scratch Lucene sub-project, with David Balmain (author of Ferret, a Ruby/C port of Lucene), Doug Cutting, and Marvin Humphrey (founder of KinoSearch, a Perl/C port) as committers. During an initial burst of activity, the overall architecture for Lucy was sketche

Re: [VOTE] Accept Whirr for Incubation

Tom White, Cloudera * Andrew Purtell, Trend Micro * Johan Oskarsson, Twitter * Steve Loughran, HP Labs * Patrick Hunt, Yahoo! == Sponsors == === Champion === * Tom White === Nominated Mentors === * Doug Cutting * Tom White * Steve Loughran === Sponsorin

Re: [PROPOSAL] Whirr Project

Tom White wrote: The proposal is on the incubator wiki at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhirrProposal. This sounds useful to me. I'd be willing to help mentor. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Traffic Server as a TLP

+1 Traffic Server appears to have met graduation requirements. Doug Bryan Call wrote: Greetings, As no issues have been raised in our previous post to discuss graduation, the Apache Traffic Server community requests that the IPMC vote on recommending this resolution to the ASF Board. Traffi

Re: Question on tlps using incubator releases

Patrick Hunt wrote: Are there any issues with Apache tlps using incubator releases? I've heard, but cannot find any official documentation, that tlps should not. Is this really the case? Are there any rules/guidelines for this? I don't think this is a problem. One project can even release oth

Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of apache-trafficserver-incubating-2.0.0-alpha

-- leif [+1] Leif Hedstrom [+1] George Paul [+1] John Plevyak [+1] Bryan Call [+1] Jean-Frederic Clere [+1] Doug Cutting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: ge

Re: Droid IP clearance?

Thorsten Scherler wrote: The initial code was based on Apache Nutch so all the IP were cleared there. The modification that have been done by myself are all done as ASF committer. There have been code adopted from Henri Yandell patch to HttpComponents which as well had been cleared by himself as

WSRP4J stuck?

Incubator PMC, On reading this month's report to the Board from the Incubator, the Board was concerned about the inactivity in WSRP4J. Has this project been abandoned, or is there some other explanation for the lack of any activity in the last three months? Thanks! Doug -

Droid IP clearance?

Incubator PMC, On reading this month's report to the Board from the Incubator, the Board was curious what, if anything, is blocking Droid's IP clearance process and requested that I look into this. Is someone actively pursuing this? If so, are there any difficulties in obtaining the clearan

avro in mapreduce

I would like to call folks attention to MAPREDUCE-1126. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-1126 This is a key link in a series of issues involved in integrating Avro in Mapreduce. Aaron proposed a design in early December, building on the design Tom developed last summer and comm

Re: avro in mapreduce

Oops. Wrong list. Nothing to see here. Doug Doug Cutting wrote: I would like to call folks attention to MAPREDUCE-1126. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-1126 This is a key link in a series of issues involved in integrating Avro in Mapreduce. Aaron proposed a design in early

avro in mapreduce

I would like to call folks attention to MAPREDUCE-1126. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-1126 This is a key link in a series of issues involved in integrating Avro in Mapreduce. Aaron proposed a design in early December, building on the design Tom developed last summer and commit

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Joe Schaefer wrote: Exactly. That's the key difference between a release and a website, we can't take the release back. Good point. We don't mirror the website on 3rd party sites like we do releases, nor does HTTPD currently package pre-release docs as an archive that folks might download a

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be sufficient and follow this best practice? I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard Roy indicate that all developer-specific stuff should be under a dev/ URL. I think it would be

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Doug Cutting wrote: > In the absence of specific policy then *objections* are out of order I have not objected to anything. Forgive me. I did in fact use the verb "object" in a prior message: * Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the proj

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Niall Pemberton wrote: You're taking a policy that applies to release artifacts and stretching it to something it wasn't intended to cover. Applying the rules for releases to significant subsets of releases doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Subsets are subject to the same copyright

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Leo Simons wrote: So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want them mostly so they don't have to run doxygen themselves. There's really no

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Branko Čibej wrote: So I'm not too clear on what your objections are. * Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the project Web pages? I object to posting these outside of a clearly-marked developer portion of the project's web site. Then you should start

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Branko Čibej wrote: Actually, we're talking about API documentation which in Subversion's case is generated from the sources, so yes, it is subject to release votes. But only for actual releases. Restricting the publishing of generated API documentation would imply that we should restrict access

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Niall Pemberton wrote: I would prefer what I say isn't distorted by selective editing. Sorry, that was not my intent. I'm not talking about the website in general. I'm talking specifically about publishing content primarily intended for inclusion in releases. Would Publication & release ar

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Niall Pemberton wrote: What we publish on the ASF websites doesn't have to conform to the licensing policy that releases do. I'm not talking about the website in general. I'm talking specifically about publishing content primarily intended for inclusion in releases. Would we permit someone t

  1   2   >