Berin Lautenbach wrote:
However - I have absolutely no wish to drag this out.
+1. You're doing the work, there's no strong objections (just
what probably will be proven to be very subtle differences of
opinion if we do drag this out), so just get on with it. We can
always change it later!
cheers,
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
If we want to make sure something is non-normative, it's very simple
(and appropriate) to put a rider paragraph in it stating that where it
conflicts with the policy, the policy over-rides. That's a common
approach and gets over having to worry too much about what nam
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
I've tried to draw a very clear distinction in all my e-mails that there
is one main document (that I've been calling normative, or the policy)
only. Everything else (such as the process document or roles and
responibilities) is purely as a
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Hmmm... policy... guidance... really, I may seem paranoid, but they
don't spark a clear distinction in my head.
Guideance to me is not a word that I would take to mean that something
is a set of rules. It definitely sparks a very clear distinction for me.
I want to
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I also want to make sure that we well know where things stand in
every incubation moment, as there has been enough confusion
withdouble-triple PMC concurrent votes.
+1
That said, I also think that we need *one* do
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I also want to make sure that we well know where things stand in every
incubation moment, as there has been enough confusion
withdouble-triple PMC concurrent votes.
+1
That said, I also think that we need *one* document to guide us, and
all th
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi gang,
Okay, okay, I'm exaggerating. Its real cool there's people
volunteering to write all this stuff, and the drafts are not
*that* formal. I'm just suggesting we make it easy for ourselves
and don't try to write "perfect" and "waterproof" docs. W
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I also want to make sure that we well know where things stand in every
incubation moment, as there has been enough confusion withdouble-triple
PMC concurrent votes.
+1
That said, I also think that we need *one* document to guide us, and all
the rest should be simply d
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi gang,
Okay, okay, I'm exaggerating. Its real cool there's people
volunteering to write all this stuff, and the drafts are not
*that* formal. I'm just suggesting we make it easy for ourselves
and don't try to write "perfect" and "waterproof" docs. We just
need "good enough".
ba
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi gang,
it's puzzled me how much effort some of us have been putting
in /normative/ documentation of policy, process, roles and
responsibilities. It must be a programmer thing :D
It's what IMHO our "clients" asked us for. They want to know what bounds
they have to work in, and
Hi gang,
it's puzzled me how much effort some of us have been putting
in /normative/ documentation of policy, process, roles and
responsibilities. It must be a programmer thing :D
Who needs "normative" documentation? Why?
- the board knows what incubation means
- the incubator PMC knows what incu
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
In essence, I agree that we should not change the current meaning of
Sponsor, that is exactly what you mean.
Ahh - violent agreement :>.
Absolutely not...for the policy. In the policy document it is only
mentioned right at the start as there being a requirement for an
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
BTW - Have checked changes in - how do I update the site?
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
My understanding was that there will always be a PMC (or
the board) that accepts a candidate on behalf of the ASF.
Where there is no Sponsor, the Incubator PMC acts in that
role and votes
BTW - Have checked changes in - how do I update the site?
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
My understanding was that there will always be a PMC (or
the board) that accepts a candidate on behalf of the ASF.
Where there is no Sponsor, the Incubator PMC acts in that
role and votes to accept the candidate (
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Remind me, please. With respect to Sponsor, why not just say that the
Sponsor is either a Member or a PMC (via the PMC Chair or a Member who is a
PMC member)? If a PMC is bringing a project for incubation, it would be the
Sponso
> From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Remind me, please. With respect to Sponsor, why not just say that the
> Sponsor is either a Member or a PMC (via the PMC Chair or a Member who is a
> PMC member)? If a PMC is bringing a project for incubation, it would be the
> Sponsor. If a Membe
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:49:39 +1000
(Subject: Common naming accross policy/process/roles)
Berin Lautenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Champion (was Sponsor) - the Apache Member (or member of a Sponsoring
> PMC) who champions a new candidate prior to being accepted by a Sponsor.
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:49, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Peoples,
>
> In line with what I have seen in the last couple of weeks on preferred
> terms I have updated the Policy/Process and Roles and Responsibilities
> documents so that we have :
>
> Champion (was Sponsor) - the Apache Member (or me
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
...
Champion (was Sponsor) - the Apache Member (or member of a Sponsoring
PMC) who champions a new candidate prior to being accepted by a Sponsor.
Sponsor (was Sponsoring Entity) - the PMC or Board that accepts a
candidate for incubation.
Mentor (was Shepherd) - the resp
> From: Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Champion (was Sponsor) - the Apache Member (or member of a Sponsoring
> > PMC) who champions a new candidate prior to being accepted by a Sponsor.
>
> Who has any idea what this actually means without looking up the
> definition? Why not call it what
Berin,
> Champion (was Sponsor) - the Apache Member (or member of a Sponsoring
> PMC) who champions a new candidate prior to being accepted by a Sponsor.
>
> Sponsor (was Sponsoring Entity) - the PMC or Board that accepts a
> candidate for incubation.
>
> Mentor (was Shepherd) - the responsible Ap
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What about simply:
>
> Sponsor (was Sponsoring Entity) - the PMC or Board that accepts a
> candidate for incubation.
>
> Mentor (was Shepherd and Sponsor) - the Apache Member (or member of a
> Sponsoring PMC) who champions a new candidate and
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 8:51 AM
>> Cannot open /home/cvs/CVSROOT/commitlogs/incubator: Permission denied
>
> The group permissions on that file are wrong -- I've asked root to
> fix it.
Fixed.
Sander
-
Cannot open /home/cvs/CVSROOT/commitlogs/incubator: Permission denied
The group permissions on that file are wrong -- I've asked root to
fix it.
Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
Peoples,
In line with what I have seen in the last couple of weeks on preferred
terms I have updated the Policy/Process and Roles and Responsibilities
documents so that we have :
Champion (was Sponsor) - the Apache Member (or member of a Sponsoring
PMC) who champions a new candidate prior to b
25 matches
Mail list logo
