Re: Process question on release votes

On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:48 AM, sebb wrote: > On 19 March 2014 15:05, Mark Struberg wrote: >> what has been with the rule that an ipmc must forward the VOTE to the >> incubator pmc when it gets started, and those members can also cast a >> binding -1 ? > > IPMC votes are the only ones that are b

Re: Cultivating Outstanding IP Stewards

Release votes are expected to be a decision of the list of people empowered by the foundation to make that decision. How that list of people is populated for podlings is up to the PMC. Right now, the only list we have is the IPMC itself, as appointed by the board. If the Incubator wants to creat

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > On 10/2/13 10:09 AM, "Doug Cutting" wrote: > >> 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. Establish

Fwd: piling on

Begin forwarded message: From: "Roy T. Fielding" Subject: piling on Date: July 19, 2006 3:09:17 PM PDT To: general@incubator.apache.org Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves to a proposal as committers without first

Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] HCatalog to Graduate and become part of Apache Hive

It is a majority decision. In theory, the PMC could decide to create special bylaws that would change that to a lazy consensus decision, but then I would have to lay the smack down about why it is that the US government sucks because supermajorities are designed to deny proper governance. In the

Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release

On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) > wrote: >> Hi Benson, >> >> On 1/24/13 7:23 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote: >> >>> It's unfortunate to have this conversation in parallel here and on >>> https://issues.apache.org/ji

Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Linda

I suggest choosing a different name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_%28coordination_language%29 We generally don't use names that have been (and continue to be) used extensively by other software projects. Roy On Nov 16, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Sebastian Schaffert wrote: > Dear all, > >

Re: Shipping binary file in CloudStack release

[generic incubator comments -- nothing specific to CloudStack] ... On Oct 29, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > On 29 October 2012 14:48, Chip Childers wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Noah Slater wrote: >>> But regardless, you couldn't. A single -1 vote would be >>> enough to bl

Re: [VOTE] Graduate the Apache SIS podling from the Apache Incubator

On Sep 10, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) > wrote: >> Please see the resolution below and VOTE on it for the graduation of the >> Apache >> SIS podling from the Apache Incubator. I'll leave the VOTE open for at least >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2

On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote: >> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin. > > This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release. > The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then

Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source

I fear we are miscommunicating again. Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf. Jeff just needs to give the project permission -- one simple email message to the list is enough -- and then anyone at Apache can move th

diversity

On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > I posted an email earlier today where I discussed my confusion over the > diversity requirement. I'm not comfortable doing anything without getting > some feedback on whether the diversity requirement, as currently stated on > the wiki, is correc

Re: Flume Graduation (was Re: June reports in two weeks)

There is no diversity requirement for graduating from the incubator. In many ways, incubation hinders community growth. The requirement is that the project makes decisions as an Apache project, not in private, which is harder to get used to doing if a lot of people share the same office. Diver

Re: Multi-licensed dependencies

On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb wrote: >> On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >>> I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer >>> to a list of other licenses per d

Re: Multi-licensed dependencies

On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include > the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of our LICENSE files (alongside a more > permissive license), but the key here is that it is both legally OK for us to > distribute

Re: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0

On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Fabian Christ wrote: > Hi, > > Am 26. März 2012 17:20 schrieb Roy T. Fielding : >> On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb wrote: >>>> On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe w

Re: Binary dependencies in source releases (Was: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0)

On Mar 28, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Roy, > > Of course you, personally, can't be expected to supervise all projects > or fix all documentation. At the same time, there's something a little > depressing about the situation. On the one hand, the principle at work > here is, to pa

Re: Binary dependencies in source releases (Was: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0)

On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Leo Simons wrote: >> That said, I'm not aware of us actually having such a release out there? > > Take such fringe projects like Ant, Tomcat, Lucene and Xalan that have > been shipping releases like throughout

Re: Binary dependencies in source releases (Was: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0)

are about software licensing of the product as a whole, including hard dependencies and built packages, not whether something is included in a source code package. > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> Likewise for jar files of dependencies -- they are NOT our pro

Re: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0

On Mar 27, 2012, at 2:15 AM, sebb wrote: > On 26 March 2012 16:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb wrote: >>>> On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe wrote: >>>>> H

Re: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0

On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > Some clarifications: > > Hi Roy, > > (1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all > non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description > of the licensing of that jar. We do not attempt to relicense > anything.

Re: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0

On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb wrote: >> On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe wrote: >>> Hello Incubator IPMC, >>> >>> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0. >>> This RC has passed our podling vote and

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

On Mar 1, 2012, at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 3/1/2012 9:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >> I don't know what statement Roy is referring to, so I won't challenge >> it directly. Instead I will ask that people work together to find out >> what processes are right for the ASF at this point

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead > of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator > playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press > or...). In particular, when problems arise

Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes

On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > 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

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

On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> Noel J. Bergman wrote: >>> The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, > or otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we >

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

On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Jan 9, 2012 10:03 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" wrote: >> ... >> And, no, the discussion has not been with the Trac community -- it was >> in private with a few individuals; as far as Apache is concerned, >> it neve

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

On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> On Jan 7, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> >>> On Jan 7, 2012 4:24 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" wrote: >>>> ... >>>&g

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

On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jan 7, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2012 4:24 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" wrote: >>> ... >>> The original developers are not ambivalent to this fork. >> >> Untrue. Chri

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

On Jan 7, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Jan 7, 2012 4:24 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" wrote: >> ... >> The original developers are not ambivalent to this fork. > > Untrue. Christian and Remy are, and always have been, supportive. They were > the ones to su

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

On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or > otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we are > accepting the COMMUNITY. One company is not a community. > And it seems to me that if

incubator is a single group

Hi folks, It has come to my attention that we are wasting resources and time trying to manage separate committer lists within infra for every podling. That is something that we can effectively manage once a TLP has become self-governing and self-sufficient in its interaction with infrastructure.

Re: [VOTE] Accept Howl as an Incubator Project

On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Alan Gates wrote: > Some context here for you. Howl is a project that was recently accepted to > the Incubator. It is a proposed new component in the Hadoop eco system. > There is significant concern in the Incubator that this will clash with the > name of the How

Re: [Proposal] Traffic Server

On Jun 15, 2009, at 5:56 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: Roy T. Fielding wrote: I like the idea, though I would prefer that a larger group of committers (outside Yahoo!) were known up front because that sounds like a big code base. Any chance you could convince some of the former coders to join in the

Re: [Proposal] Traffic Server

On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: Good morning, We would like to submit the Traffic Server proposal to the incubator. Our draft is available at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TrafficServerProposal A quick overview of Traffic Server: Traffic Server is a Yahoo! / Inkto

[IP-CLEARANCE] httpd mod_fcgid

http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/httpd-mod_fcgid.html Apache HTTP Server's mod_fcgid is a module for httpd that enables the server framework to provide FastCGI services using a clean-room implementation of the FastCGI 1.0 specification (http:// www.fastcgi.com/devkit/doc/fcgi-spec.html).

Re: Click Incubation - Status

On Jul 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Malcolm Edgar wrote: One possible complication to this is that all the code in Click currently has a copyright header assigned to Malcolm Edgar, even if they were contributed from other comitters. So in committing code people have explicity assigned their copyright t

Re: Click Incubation - Status

On Jul 27, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: Is there existing code in Click written by Ahmed? As getting an ICLA or rewriting this code will be required as a part of the IP clearance process. That isn't quite true. The ASF requires documentation that the original author has licensed

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we really need an incubator?

On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Apache isn't about 'community over code'. The code is just as important - if not more so. For Incubator releases, the releases aren't held to the same legal standard as releases from other PMCs. Huh? The only difference I know of is the po

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we really need an incubator?

Dims, I have to disagree. The releases that we allow incubating projects to make, with three +1s and a majority approval, are full Apache releases. They have been officially approved by the foundation and we are 100% responsible for their content. That's okay, because they also tend to receiv

Re: legal questsion

On Jul 7, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Werner Punz wrote: Hello everyone, since the discussion on the myfaces devs list has pointed me towards here a legal question. I developed in my working time which I can dedicate to opensource software a significant library, licensed under ASF 2.0 license. It is a

Re: Q: ip-clearance step 5

On May 18, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: apache needs a record of the checksummed artifact. this is likely to be the zipped code. FTR, Apache only needs this if there is no other way to map the contribution to the contributor. The easiest way to map them is to have the contrib

[IP-CLEARANCE] httpd mod_domain (was mod_dns)

http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/httpd-mod_domain-clearance.html httpd mod_domain (nee mod_dns) IP clearance Apache HTTP Server's mod_domain is a module for httpd that enables the server framework to provide Domain Name Services (DNS). It was originally called mod_dns, but the name ha

[jira] Commented: (INCUBATOR-74) IP Clearance Template is rubbish

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-74?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12591773#action_12591773 ] Roy T. Fielding commented on INCUBATOR-74: -- I like the approach, but

Re: cut the crap

On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:55 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Roy T. Fielding wrote: I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about decisions that the Incubator is not responsible for making. The required IP clea

cut the crap

I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about decisions that the Incubator is not responsible for making. The required IP clearance questions should be: Date: Identify the Contribution: Identify the Contri

Re: (qpid) Diversity

On Mar 7, 2008, at 11:07 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Friday 07 March 2008 16:39, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: So the CCLA exists for those who's employment agreements would otherwise cause them to violate their claims made via their CLA contract. Uhhh So, are we now saying that heaps of

Re: [Proposal] Sling

I would just add that JSR-311 might also be an option. As an aside (and since you folks are on the Expert Group), do we know if JAX-RS will be under a suitable specification license, or has Sun encumbered it as they have other Sun-led specifications? We don't know. We won't implement JSR

Re: podling BIS notifications

On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: +1 to everything above -- although, rather than saying a later notice needs to be sent out when the encryption functionality changes, I'd put it as, "a later notice needs to be sent when any information on the prior notice has changed"...but this

Re: incubator releases need to be under www.a.o/dist/incubator

On Feb 21, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Leo Simons wrote: On Feb 21, 2007, at 1:08 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: One thing that seems to have been forgotten is that an approved release must be in the form of SOURCE CODE and must be placed in the associated PMC's public distribution area under

Re: podling BIS notifications

BIS notices have to be made if a product contains encryption functionality controlled by the EAR's 5D002 classification, or is specifically designed to make use of a 5D002 classified item (as would the case if the source code contains calls to OpenSSL or JCE interfaces), or if any released package

Re: incubator releases need to be under www.a.o/dist/incubator

On Feb 20, 2007, at 7:11 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: In other words, we agree there is probably an export issue to resolve, however /dist/incubator/ does not exist for a reason, and it would be helpful if you ran changes to the incubator past the incubator PMC before confusing our podlings w

podling BIS notifications

I noticed yesterday that James Snell was being very proactive and submitted the correct BIS notification for Abdera. However, please note that Abdera is not yet an Apache Project, even though it

incubator releases need to be under www.a.o/dist/incubator

At various times, various people have stated various rather incongruent descriptions of what has to be done when a podling performs a release http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html One thing that seems to have been forgotten is that an approved release must be in the form o

resigning from incubator pmc

I am too far underwater to keep track of the incubator mail, so there is no point in continuing to be on the PMC. I'll probably be back some day when I have a reason to justify the time and focus. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-ma

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Synapse

+1 Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: release voting

On Dec 20, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Wednesday 20 December 2006 18:04, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 19, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote: That's how it works. No, that's not how it works. Isn't it a bit scary that two of the most respected members of AS

Re: release voting

On Dec 19, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On 12/11/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Can a PMC chair veto a release? No. A chair only counts as one vote. A chair's only special powers are to receive things officially and ensure that the PMC does vot

release voting

On Dec 10, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 10 Dec 06, at 8:02 PM 10 Dec 06, Martin Cooper wrote: On 12/10/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10 Dec 06, at 6:40 PM 10 Dec 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Dec 10, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Karl Pauls wrote: > >&g

Re: Deploying Incubator Maven Artifacts [was Re: [VOTE] Apache Incubator CXF 2.0-M1 Release (RC 3)]

On Dec 7, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote: I must be missing something. If they aren't voted on, how do you know if they're valid and meet release requirements? It is impossible to verify that in a binary. We have to trust the person building it to do so according to an approved script.

Re: Deploying Incubator Maven Artifacts [was Re: [VOTE] Apache Incubator CXF 2.0-M1 Release (RC 3)]

On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote: On 12/7/06, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would say for now we just remove that jar if it's needed. However, how did the servicemix and other projects votes pass if it's a requirement? Is this another "new requirement in the mi

Re: Including snapshot dependencies from other ASF projects

I don't think there is a simple answer, other than the general rules of three +1s and source code required. However, Java code has additional concerns related to classpath conflicts that could make distributing snapshots harmful to the origin project. My first try would be to jump over to that o

Re: [VOTE] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

On Nov 16, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: BTW, why distribute a zip package? Wouldn't it be more sensible to distribute as a jar? Just curious. The zip contains documentation, examples, and the dependency jars required to run the examples. Yes, I know that -- the point was th

Re: [VOTE] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

On Nov 16, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: We'll correct these issues asap. Once corrected artifacts are uploaded, I assume it will necessary to re-start the vote on the open-jpa-dev list before re-starting the vote here. Please correct me if I am wrong. That is correct -- eac

Re: Weirdness with the web site

On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote: So, I'm trying to finish off the job of removing lucene4c from the web site, since it's been retired it shouldn't be showing up in the list of podlings and what not, and when I'm generating the site I can't help but notice lots of changes in the

Re: [DISCUSS] incubator voting process

On Nov 10, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: There seems to be a persistent delusion that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is where incubation happens. The reality is that all the real incubating happens on the PPMC private and dev lists. We can correct this in one of two ways: recognize what actually

Re: wikis

On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:02 PM, Don Brown wrote: Where should it be documented? I set up Confluence exactly like the other JIRA installations using the same directory structures, startup scripts, tomcat setup, and logging policies. If it is a matter of not enough volunteers to administrate it, let

Re: wikis

On Nov 9, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Don Brown wrote: What exactly makes something a part of the "official" ASF infrastructure? I thought it was that a member of Infrastructure had volunteered to maintain it, and if that's the case, Confluence is indeed a part of the "official" ASF infrastructure since

Re: wikis

On Nov 9, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: this is not a kind of attitude i would expect from a professional organization. a big part of joining apache is the desire for a stable and maintained infrastructure. we (wicket) came here from sf.net. things used to go down there all the time

Re: [site] can someone fix the permissions...?

done. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: JiniProposal -> BraintreeProposal

On Oct 27, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Jim Hurley wrote: On Oct 25, 2006, at 6:35 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Greg Stein wrote: It doesn't matter whatsoever as long as you are VERY consistently calling it "Apache Braintree" as you should be doing _anyways_ Would that apply equally to the two names that

Re: Wicket interim release

On Oct 29, 2006, at 5:37 AM, Upayavira wrote: The Wicket community is attempting to steer a difficult course between supporting its existing users and also entering Incubation. The community is committed to incubation within Apache, but at the same time wishes to make the transition for its

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Harmony to TLP status (pending board approval)

+1 (travel delayed) Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How to read and write e-mail @ apache (was: Re: [VOTE] graduate harmony podling)

On Oct 23, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Leo Simons wrote: Change the subject line when you change the subject...done. But you didn't change the subject, so that was a bad idea. On Oct 21, 2006, at 11:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Oct 21, 2006, at 3:24 AM, Leo Simons wrote: This is *no

Re: [VOTE] graduate harmony podling

On Oct 21, 2006, at 3:24 AM, Leo Simons wrote: This is *not* an actual vote. The vote is on harmony-dev; see Well, then, why did you call it a vote? This is what we call confusing the voters, ballot irregularities, "hanging chad", and other fun things that cause unnecessary wars. I don't und

Re: Checkpoint on Harmony (Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation)

On Oct 20, 2006, at 3:34 AM, Tim Ellison wrote: To be clear, our snapshots are more than a simple snap of Subversion -- we (the Harmony community) discuss the right time to create the development snapshot to accommodate known instability caused by work in flight, publish the snapshot with t

Re: Checkpoint on Harmony (Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation)

On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: I agree with the motivations behind asking for a release, but disagree that a release is the only way to satisfy IPMC's need for information about the health and capability of a podling's future life as a TLP. It isn't -- it is just on

Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation

On Oct 18, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Grote, Judy wrote: He just never seems to give up--like a small child not knowing when to stop. No, more like an old grandpa who sees his grandkids grab a pair of scissors and then asks the parents whether they've taught them not to start running around the room do

Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation

On Oct 18, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Don Brown wrote: Agreed. I don't think it is fair to be making up graduation requirements right when a project is about to graduate. The graduation requirement is that a majority of the PMC members agree that a podling should be graduated. Geir asked for a discu

Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation

On Oct 17, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: How do we know that a group has learned the Apache way of doing things if they have never voted on a release? The single most important action of a TLP should be learned by the committers before they become a TLP. Are you looking for u

Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation

On Oct 17, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Daniel Kulp wrote: On Tuesday October 17 2006 12:44 am, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: The PPMC of the Apache Harmony incubator podling has voted to ask for graduation from the Apache Incubator. We have enjoyed our time here with you, but feel

Re: [VOTE] approve the 4.0.2 (RC4) release of ActiveMQ

On Oct 9, 2006, at 2:59 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: the source distributions unpacks to the same directory as the binary. this is inconvenient for users. it's better to unpack the source to incubator-activemq-4.0.2-src. I disagree with that. Usually, a source distribution should be the en

Re: [VOTE] Mark lucene4c as dormant

+1 Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership

On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Roy T. Fielding wrote: The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal quorum of three PMC

Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership

On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the podling and the Mentors. this is not policy ATM Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronimo incubation. They do have binding votes on everything *exce

Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership

On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Roy T. Fielding wrote: I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make decisio

Re: Policy on Initial Committership

On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote: As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural for a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses. But let's at least get CXF off to a good start! Or kill it now and let the proposers compile a list o

Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership

On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: -1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors are the least capable of selecting a PPMC. I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF. You mean it isn't always true. I agree. In general, however, it is almost

Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership

On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread: - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members - The PPMC elects Committers This also implies changing t

Re: IRC Channel?

On Aug 15, 2006, at 2:38 AM, Ian Holsman wrote: It isn't the individuals who make the decision, but the community as a whole. If they feel more comfortable using X to communicate then fine. If a individual doesn't like the method the project is communicating with then it is up to him to con

Re: Cayenne IP Clearance status: 4 icla's not obtained

On Aug 1, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: Cayenne has obtained ICLAs for all committers, including retired committers. They have also obtained ICLAs for any who submitted patches -- with the exception of 4 patch submitters whose contributions were minor, trivial, reworked or broken

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote: Brian, Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels, that said we are in the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and feedback lists

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote: The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am not trying to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does Apache deals with this. If a trademark appears to be infringed, the project and all of its releas

Re: piling on

On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient. Well, no, the expectation is clearly being set that anyone can add themselves to the proposal on the wiki, and I for one vote to approve a proposal based on both the wiki and th

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

On Jul 21, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote: If you search many of the Apache project names, they are trademarked to gezoo, No they aren't, at least not within the software category. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] [UPDATE] CeltiXfire Project Proposal

On Jul 21, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Yep, both ws and jakarta have single ACL's. So any committer on any sub-project can *CHOOSE* to participate in any other sub-project. So can anyone who isn't a committer. You don't need commit access to participate. Roy

Re: piling on

On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 14:54 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if you get on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwis

Re: piling on

On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: I think so -- an unwelcome mentor is a waste of everyone's time. I also think mentors need commit access, since I don't bel

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project can cause a previously closed "standard" to be forced into the open or be supplanted. In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least one registered

Re: piling on

On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote: On 7/19/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of the person(s) making the proposal. Being a commit

  1   2   3   4   >