Judgement call depending on what you might
consider a reasonable size for a minor fix
versus an independent work (e.g. new module).
The larger the patch the more likely you should
consider having the author file some paperwork with
Apache to cover the contribution.
HTH
On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:20 PM
> I’m assuming we can continue with the vote without having to start over at
> this point?
>
> Thanks again for your input.
>
> - Taylor
>
> On Feb 15, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>
>> It means that unless Nathan Marz and an Yahoo! employee
>>
It means that unless Nathan Marz and an Yahoo! employee
added those items to the NOTICE, you can remove them. But
if they did, than either Nathan Marz or a Y! employee should
be asked to.
In terms of being a release blocker, I’d say not. If you fix
this in HEAD that should be sufficient to conti
The copyright date is not a showstopper.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Dave Brondsema wrote:
>
> Doh. I've fixed that in git just now. If its a blocker for this release, I
> can
> go ahead and do new one, but obviously it'd be easier to continue with this
> one
> if th
Chris no offense but all we can do is vote on what you put in front of us. As
soon as you realized that that document was a mess the vote should have been
cancelled. Right now you have no clear picture of what each vote *means*
because the thing we are supposed to be approving is in flux. Rig
-mails to see what occurred
> since, and recover any missing files from archive.a.o (presumably)
>
> On 26 January 2014 23:17, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>> Unfortunately we had to restore dist.apache.org
>> from offsite backups and a few commits to the incubator
>> tree
Unfortunately we had to restore dist.apache.org
from offsite backups and a few commits to the incubator
tree were lost as a result. Projects are encouraged
to check out their dist trees and ensure that the
latest content is available via dist.apache.org and
releases at www.apache.org/dist/incubato
No policy says anything about binaries in svn, but if you can't have them in
your source package it probably doesn't make much sense to keep them in svn.
But really that part is up to the project not the IPMC.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
>
> Hi a
The core issue is that what you are currently doing was actually the
recommended way of dealing with external dependencies back when maven central
didn't exist.
We changed course a few years ago based on Roy's complaints about source
packages consisting solely of source code. I don't remember
+1
On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> So it begins =)
>
> +1
>
> Thanks for leading the effort, Marvin
>
> - Henry
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> As the next step in our ongoing efforts to reform the release voting pr
Oh snap Daniel nice job with that. I didn’t
even notice that stanza in the config file
before!
On Nov 20, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Joseph Schaefer wrote on Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 23:18:11 -0500:
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>>
Can I just ask how many people have we encountered who upon
being offered IPMC membership turned it down with grounds along
these lines? Why do we design policy about the fringes and not
the happy, average, well-adjusted individuals we meet daily here
who would be honored to help out and act respo
tep in, if necessary with
> -1s, if those are ignored the pTLP gets sent back to the Incubator.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Joseph Schaefer
> wrote:
>>
>> Then lets disambiguate by not referring to the
>> “IP Stewards” as being the PPMC.
Already resolved. A Forbidden response instead
of a failed auth request almost always implies
committing using http.
On Nov 20, 2013, at 12:28 AM, David Crossley wrote:
> Jordan Zimmerman wrote:
>> When I tried to commit the change, I get:
>>
>> svn: E175013: Commit failed (details follow):
>>
No there’s a difference. Before he was asking what
infra was going to do to magically make this happen.
That request was denied.
Now we have a better question: what can he do himself
to make this happen? Here there are some answers to
questions that should be addressed in the incubator docs
but
On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Jordan Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> Can someone please explain to me what I need to do to have
>> curator.incubator.apache.org redirect to curator.apache.org?
>
> You need to create a
On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Jordan Zimmerman wrote:
> Can someone please explain to me what I need to do to have
> curator.incubator.apache.org redirect to curator.apache.org?
You need to create an .htaccess file at the top-level of your tree with the
following contents
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Joseph Schaefer
> wrote:
>
>> I don’t see how the situation is any worse
>> than it is now, where no one on the project
>> currently has a binding vote on a release.
>> Going from that to “a few” may seem unfair,
>>
I don’t see how the situation is any worse
than it is now, where no one on the project
currently has a binding vote on a release.
Going from that to “a few” may seem unfair,
but we have to start somewhere and we need
to keep in mind that this is partly a training
exercise, where we need to see peop
Well I can assure you it’s NOT compulsory at Apache ;-).
On Nov 10, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Every American that has voted for a public office
>> knows that winning the majority has nothing to do
>> with the total population of potential voters.
> Where I'm from voting
Every American that has voted for a public office
knows that winning the majority has nothing to do
with the total population of potential voters. Let’s
not try to rationalize geekdom’s love affair with
special purpose terminology- my own pet peeve is
what the java world did to the word distributi
help us manage our workload.
Talk is cheap in a doocracy, we need an action
plan and leadership not more argumentation passing
itself off as helpful suggestions.
On Nov 10, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Joseph Schaefer
> wrote:
>> Unl
Unlikely to get at least Roy’s approval because release
votes are expected to be a decision of the full committee,
not any one member of it.
On Nov 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2013, at 1:04 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> How about simply changing the rules for Incu
The reason we are reduced to guesswork
and posturing about how to fix what ails
us is because we haven’t a clue what the
core problems with incubation are. All we
have are a rash of symptoms: inadequate
release voting oversight, inadequate podling
community development, etc. It sure would’ve
been
No offense Ross but give me a break. While I’m
glad to see my initial ideas gain so much traction
in the incubator now that people no longer remember
where they come from, and even are willing to falsely
claim credit for them, but this whole idea of populating
the IPMC with ordinary podling partic
The script has options for pulling the svn
data out of a local repo, it's just that I
don't run the script on a host with such a
repo available. I'm however willing to do that
if someone is willing to fully automate the process
by providing some frontend code for the script
that ensures the script
n committership, when
we're talking about the httpd project.
On Oct 4, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2013 12:52 PM, "Joseph Schaefer" wrote:
>> ...
>> e.g. how to vote properly
>> on personnel issues, and that should entirely suffice. Even Greg
IMO none of the new glossary entries are worth doing.
Procedural votes are votes about bylaws and other rules
which you will apply to self-govern, so they deserve
an appropriate treatment. "Discouraged from voting" is
perhaps too harsh a sentiment, what we want those people to
know is their opinion
t.
On Oct 3, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 10/3/13 8:48 AM, "Joseph Schaefer" wrote:
>
>> Good Lord man all you need to add is a one-sentence
>> statement that personnel votes are consensus votes not
>> procedural (simple majority) vo
Good Lord man all you need to add is a one-sentence
statement that personnel votes are consensus votes not
procedural (simple majority) votes.
On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 10/3/13 6:23 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Alex Harui w
Thanks for clearing that up Jim. Now who is going to make peace over all the
spilled milk here?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:39 AM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> All things
>> consider
Honestly the point that keeps getting missed here is
that everything we do at Apache proceeds at a notoriously
slow pace so people can adjust accordingly. All things
considered, would it be better if Sanjiva and colleagues
ASKED to be included in the proposal instead of just adding
themselves in a
Agreed. Convenience binaries have always been distributed on our mirrors.
Only the corresponding source tarball requires a vote.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2013, at 2:40 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>
>
>> As Tim and Luciano have alr
Jim added support for premonth notices several months ago.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Joseph Schaefer
> wrote:
>> I run the script by hand because it requires a password for the svn
>> checko
I run the script by hand because it requires a password for the svn checkouts.
If you need it to run a full week prior to the podling reports due date, just
ask.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Greets,
>
> "Marvin" sent out report reminders earlier tod
The typical escalation path is either board@ or board-private@ assuming private
messages to the chair are ineffective. Most of the time, for most of our
projects, this has worked well enough.
The real issue for the IPMC boils down to the judgement call of whether the
standard escalation proced
at 12:02 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Joseph Schaefer
> wrote:
>> This argument reminds me of the current debate in Congress about whether or
>> not military sex offense reporting should remain within the chain of
>> command. Propon
This argument reminds me of the current debate in Congress about whether or not
military sex offense reporting should remain within the chain of command.
Proponents argue that it's hard to hold commanders accountable if they aren't
empowered to act; adversaries say victims are afraid to report w
sity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Schaefer
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:52 AM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Subject: Re: [PROPO
This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical
counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide
themselves.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> On 15 Jun
Agreed on the undesirability of making survey participation mandatory. On the
wiki page in question I framed it as a right that surveys are available fwiw.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I'm not keen on this one. I don't like surveys and I don't like ma
Yes infra can setup a manual redirect once the tree is gone from the repo.
Just ping me when it's time.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 29/05/2013 Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:40:19PM +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> Is this t
What we really need now is a few hundred more emails on this exciting subject,
just like every other year! At the end we can all agree to disagree and go
away sad that nothing ever gets done around here, just like every other year we
have this interesting debate!
Party on I say.
Sent from my
suboptimal.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 11, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>
>> Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING
>> these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that&
Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING
these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me.
We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent
volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do
what'
You go girl! Spot on.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2013, at 12:54 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>
> On May 7, 2013, at 4:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>>> ...Let's get rid of champions and shepherds and hold the mentors to their
>>
No more so than they already had.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
> No what it means Joe is that who chooses the wording of the vote gets
> a lot of control the outcome.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joseph Schaefer
Waah. Look this just DEFINES consensus as 75% instead
of the old 100%. It doesn't throw consensus out the window.
Please stop with all of these exaggerations and try to
self-moderate- half of the volume in these debates is all
you talking to yourself.
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:18 AM, ant elder wro
This whole exercise is pointless. Just drop the notion of vetoes for all IPMC
votes and carry on as before.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning wrot
t;
> @Joseph: that looks interesting too, could you provide a link to that
> extension?
>
> thx a lot for the tips & pointers
>
>
> cheers,
> juan pablo
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>
>> In the custom extension we use there i
In the custom extension we use there is code that lets you select a CSS
classname by adding {.classname} to the end of the text area.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 5, 2013, at 1:48 PM, "Emmanouil Batsis (Manos)" wrote:
>
> IF I understand you correctly you might be able to simply tackle the issu
51 matches
Mail list logo
