robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 07:48 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
...
Listen dude, I asked the Ant project myself to move, and got flamed
for that. I lobbied some James guys to do the same. I brought the
discussion forward on the com
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 07:48 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
i (for one) would not feel able to support any vote to push any
sub-project out of jakarta (though i do think that this would be a good
thing for more than one sub-project.) i think that any push
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We should ask ourselves if we expect to provide a home for extended
Perl, C or whatever APIs, naming services for those languages, etc. If
the answer is "yes", then fine, we can all agree and move forward.
my opinion is that standards-based Directory + Identity services
co
> We should ask ourselves if we expect to provide a home for extended
> Perl, C or whatever APIs, naming services for those languages, etc. If
> the answer is "yes", then fine, we can all agree and move forward.
> my opinion is that standards-based Directory + Identity services
> could make up a
Phil Steitz wrote:
See comments inline
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I have no problem with protocol-centric projects, and no problem with
language-centric projects, but I do have a problem with
protocol-centric
projects that assume one implementation language is "best".
OK, I've seen enough langu
FWIW, my opinion is that standards-based Directory + Identity services
could make up a natural "semantic domain" (actually more natural than
"XML") and we should focus on defining this domain, rather than what
languages or language-specific extensions will be supported (much as
that diminishes
See comments inline
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I have no problem with protocol-centric projects, and no problem with
language-centric projects, but I do have a problem with protocol-centric
projects that assume one implementation language is "best".
OK, I've seen enough language wars to understand y
> I have no problem with protocol-centric projects, and no problem with
> language-centric projects, but I do have a problem with protocol-centric
> projects that assume one implementation language is "best".
OK, I've seen enough language wars to understand your a priori concern.
Mind you, not eve
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 14:15 Europe/Rome, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
You feel excluded? Well, you do not need to be. Ask to become part of
this PMC, and you'll be surprised.
I don't feel excluded, Nicola. I feel unable to get my points across.
Admittedly, I could have used a more diplomatic
> That isn't the question I was asking. If someone else comes to Apache
> and says they want to start an LDAP server project using, for example,
> the Netscape code base (C++, I think) and another comes in wanting to
> establish a Python library for builtin calls to LDAP, should the ASF
> direct t
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 09:04 Europe/Rome, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
It has made issues that without it are simply ignored finally evident.
As for other issues, they are usually created by people complaining
here and not helping out.
I'm trying to help out indicat
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 09:04 Europe/Rome, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The Chair of that PMC is the sponsor.
Really? I thought I was the sponsor.
Really? Didn's see you there much :-P
Which might also show how many private emails you might have missed?
Incubation is more a social operation tha
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> I have no problem with protocol-centric projects, and no problem with
> language-centric projects, but I do have a problem with protocol-centric
> projects that assume one implementation language is "best". Those types
> of projects create failure conditions that are ve
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Steven, sorry that I probably gave the wrong impression that you were
not involved, as you were.
No problem. Just wanted to put things straight. No hard feelings.
But you are not the Cocoon PMC, and I wanted
to point out that there was not much incolvment of the PMC as
Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> I would humbly suggest that there is no harm in public discussion of
> incubator project proposals, understanding that the voting is private,
> by the PMC. Public discussion and nonbinding statements of
> support/non-support by non-PMC members could provide valuable
> in
Java is simply the chosen implementation platform for an RFC-compliant
server, just as C/APR is the implementation platform for the HTTP
server.
The wire-level protocol is RFC based and language neutral. The
project can
host other languages when appropriate, and would certainly provide
informati
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
...
Just to clarify - my issue is not too many or to
few rules, but that I'd like to see the rules
clearly documented so that I can ensure that
anything I am involved in incubating is doing what
it needs to do.
Oh, and to clarify from my side, you are helping us on the is
> Facts show us that PMCs left on their own do not overlook
> an incubation process correctly.
Clearly there are lines of communication that can be improved, as well as
roles and responsibilities to clarify. Incubation can be collaborative.
And the behavior that the podling sees between its paren
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I don't understand: what is this incubator doing anyway if all the
> > projects are incubated somewhere else?
>
> 1 - votes the projects into Apache after check that all the nitty-gritty
> stuff has been taken care of
Or does it recommend
rs,
Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] PMC Vote to incubate Directory Project
>
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >>> Greg posted a
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 14:05 Europe/Rome, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
the members came to consensus agreeing that project umbrellas are a
pain in the ass and a PMC should be as close as possible to the code
it develops, as to increase the
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 07:56 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
I don't doubt it, and the proof ought to be in the ones that have
already
done so. I do ask if the PMC doing anything to help encourage other
projects to matriculate?
L
Steven Noels wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Should we make a poll so that we can see what others think?
Yawn.
Listen dudes: things were pretty busy when the Lenya/Xopus issue
happened - so thanks Nicola, as a member of the Cocoon PMC, for stepping
forward. Before Nicola however appeared on th
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Personally, I think it is an excellent proposal except for one item:
> Java is not the center of the universe. Either this project should
> consider all languages (seems unlikely, unless you already have those
> other people in place), or the project should be named after
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Greg posted a message back on the 18th noting that a PMC vote on the
entry of the project to the incubator would be kicked off under the
private [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. I don't know the specifics of Incubator
voting policies but I guessing we will see a vote result early
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Personally, I think it is an excellent proposal except for one item:
> Java is not the center of the universe. Either this project should
> consider all languages (seems unlikely, unless you already have those
> other people in place), or the projec
Greg posted a message back on the 18th noting that a PMC vote on the
entry of the project to the incubator would be kicked off under the
private [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. I don't know the specifics of Incubator
voting policies but I guessing we will see a vote result early next
week.
I saw that.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Phil:
Greg posted a message back on the 18th noting that a PMC vote on the
entry of the project to the incubator would be kicked off under the
private [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. I don't know the specifics of Incubator
voting policies but I guessing we will see a vote resu
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 12:12 Europe/Rome, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2003 09:04:31 PM:
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 05:21 Europe/Rome, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2003 08:42:26 AM:
It took repeated a
Phil:
Greg posted a message back on the 18th noting that a PMC vote on the
entry of the project to the incubator would be kicked off under the
private [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. I don't know the specifics of Incubator
voting policies but I guessing we will see a vote result early next week.
Step
Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2003 09:04:31 PM:
>
> On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 05:21 Europe/Rome, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2003 08:42:26 AM:
> >
> >> It took repeated attemps to get Ant to "matriculate". And
significa
I have been following this thread with interest and have found the
discussion very informative. Thanks to all who have provided insight for
those of us with less knowledge and experience with the Apache way.
I have been a bit surprised by the lack of discussion about the merits
of the proposal
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Should we make a poll so that we can see what others think?
Yawn.
Listen dudes: things were pretty busy when the Lenya/Xopus issue
happened - so thanks Nicola, as a member of the Cocoon PMC, for stepping
forward. Before Nicola however appeared on the Lenya list with his
At 02:54 PM 9/18/2003 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Without a clear sense of responsibility, the end result
are that podlings are essentially left on their own and
"every" Incubator member thinks someone else is
doing the oversight. :/
I think Jim makes a good point.
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j do
On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 07:56 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
I don't doubt it, and the proof ought to be in the ones that have already
done so. I do ask if the PMC doing anything to help encourage other
projects to matriculate?
Last time I proposed that the Jak
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
"Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you think that the quietness of [EMAIL PROTECTED] is due to the TLP
> > expansion?
> No, I think its due to the fact that Jakarta is (IMHO) a group of
> communities that often have overlapping members
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> Do you think that the quietness of [EMAIL PROTECTED] is due to the TLP
> expansion?
No, I think its due to the fact that Jakarta is (IMHO) a group of
communities that often have overlapping memberships, not a community
itself. The TLP migration didn'
Jochen,
With respect to your comments regarding Community, many of us have never
worked on a code project with one of the other folks here, but we are all
part of a Community; the Apache Community. I have more in common with some
of the HTTPd developers than with many other Jakarta contributors d
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > I think that you are raising an orthogonal issue. You are talking about
> > wanting to be able to keep up with the ASF more easily and effectively.
> I agree, that this topic *can* be ortogonal. However, currently it isn't,
> as you well know.
ROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] PMC Vote to incubate Directory Project
> >
> > Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > ...
> > > A word quite frequently used here is "community". Don't you think that
> > > the communities of jakarta, db, or x
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:05:26 +0200
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] PMC Vote to incubate Directory Project
>
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> I still believe that the Incubation PMC doesn't make any sense at all.
oh, please, let's not start another flamewar about whether it's
needed or not. it's here; can we please just deal with it and make it
work as well as possible?
> The incubation PMC is seen by man
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 14:05 Europe/Rome, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
the members came to consensus agreeing that project umbrellas are a
pain in the ass and a PMC should be as close as possible to the code
it develops, as to increase the ability to do proper lega
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 14:35 Europe/Rome, Sam Ruby wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
2) Problems in the Avalon community that the jakarta PMC was unaware
of (there was not Avalon representation in that PMC at that time)
There was Avalon representation in the Jakarta PMC at that time.
who?
--
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 13:56 Europe/Rome, Rodent of Unusual Size
wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Hence, if the sponsor, as we said, shall be an Apache member, he is
already legally "safe", and does not need to be on the PMC. I doubt
that
an Apache member that does his first incubation is k
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>> actually, i can see a point in mentors/shepherds being on the pmc: they
>> should be aware of procedural and policy discussions and decisions, and
>> be able to provide input on how such will affect their podlings.
>
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
2) Problems in the Avalon community that the jakarta PMC was unaware of
(there was not Avalon representation in that PMC at that time)
There was Avalon representation in the Jakarta PMC at that time.
- Sam Ruby
---
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 10:08 Europe/Rome, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Even if all Jakarta projects get top-level (which I doubt), Jakarta
as a community can still remain. It is a place where Java developers
can get together on common issues. Jakarta doesn't have to dit
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
the members came to consensus agreeing that project umbrellas are a pain
in the ass and a PMC should be as close as possible to the code it
develops, as to increase the ability to do proper legal oversight.
[note: this notion is in *strong* contrast with this virtual
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> > Hence, if the sponsor, as we said, shall be an Apache member, he is
> > already legally "safe", and does not need to be on the PMC. I doubt that
> > an Apache member that does his first incubation is knowledge
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Hence, if the sponsor, as we said, shall be an Apache member, he is
> already legally "safe", and does not need to be on the PMC. I doubt that
> an Apache member that does his first incubation is knowledgeble as a PMC
> member that has seen more than one.
actually
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 05:21 Europe/Rome, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2003 08:42:26 AM:
It took repeated attemps to get Ant to "matriculate". And significant
effort for Avalon. James is the only project that I recall that di
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 05:21 Europe/Rome, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2003 08:42:26 AM:
It took repeated attemps to get Ant to "matriculate". And significant
effort for Avalon. James is the only project that I recall that did
it
of their own initi
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Even if all Jakarta projects get top-level (which I doubt), Jakarta as a
community can still remain. It is a place where Java developers can get
together on common issues. Jakarta doesn't have to dite, it just needs
to find it's own correct space, more about coordinati
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
Ah, ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding. From Nicola Ken's message, he
seems to be offering that he'll act as the PMC representative for the
project, and I'll act as project sponsor.
Then you understood me quite correctly. You are an ASF member, you can
be the sponsor.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We have not voted on any definitive resolution about this, but currently
there is an informal rule sprung out of necessity that each incubating
project should have someone from Apache that sponsors and actively works
with the project, and a shepherd from the PMC that oversees
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:27:52 +0200
Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no idea of the organisational rationale behind the desire for more
> TLP's. Personally I have serious doubts that it is a good decision: AFAIK
> any TLP is sending his chair to the board, and I do not believe
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
...
A word quite frequently used here is "community". Don't you think that
the communities of jakarta, db, or xml are worth being kept? They would
not even exist if anything were a top level project.
Even if all Jakarta projects get top-level (which I doubt), Jakarta as a
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think any ASF member that wants to be active in any part of incubation
should be immediately placed on the PMC as soon as they request it.
Non-ASF members should have to prove themselves worthy first, taking into
consideration their involvement in other ASF projects, but th
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think that you are raising an orthogonal issue. You are talking about
wanting to be able to keep up with the ASF more easily and effectively. I
don't disagree with you, but I don't think that it is any easier to locate
content on one massive web site with tons of large s
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
I don't doubt it, and the proof ought to be in the ones that have already
done so. I do ask if the PMC doing anything to help encourage other
projects to matriculate?
Last time I proposed that the Jakarta PMC asks some projects if they
wanted to go top-level it did no
> I have a question, which has (IMO) not been answered in the current
> discussion: What is the advantage for me as an Apache user (client,
> whatever you call those mere people like me which are simply
> following from the outside, doing downloads from time to time).
First of all, I hope that no
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I would support JetSpeed+Pluto+WSRP4J+possibly others
eventually becoming [a TLP].
Agreed. Other candidates that have been suggested by one person or another
include:
Turbine
Velocity
Lucene (or to db.apache.org?)
Struts
I have a question, which has (IMO) not
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2003 08:42:26 AM:
> It took repeated attemps to get Ant to "matriculate". And significant
> effort for Avalon. James is the only project that I recall that did it
> of their own initiative.
I always wondered how Maven got out from under jakarta/turb
> Those [projects] that have remained in Jakarta are because of strong
> desire to be there. In particular, I remember a pretty strong reaction
> by Turbine when the suggestion was made that they should become a TLP.
> It took repeated attemps to get Ant to "matriculate". And significant
> effor
> ASF Member status continues to maintain a certain club quality
> within which privaliges ebb-and-flow toi sute the moment).
Huh?
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msg
No=2002
--- Noel
-
To unsubscr
Sam Ruby wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
James is the only project that I recall that did it of their own
initiative.
Correction - Avalon was of its own iniative.
Hearing that statement makes me feel VERY good. ;-)
Zutt - thinking back to the days of the reorg discuss
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
James is the only project that I recall that did it of their own
initiative.
Correction - Avalon was of its own iniative.
Hearing that statement makes me feel VERY good. ;-)
Cheers, Steve.
Note: Stephen is not a subscriber to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] maili
Sam Ruby wrote:
James is the only project that I recall that did it of their own
initiative.
Correction - Avalon was of its own iniative.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe,
I think any ASF member that wants to be active in any part of incubation
should be immediately placed on the PMC as soon as they request it.
Non-ASF members should have to prove themselves worthy first, taking
into
consideration their involvement in other ASF projects, but they too
should
be part
> From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This also fits in with what Ted just said. He is shepharding XMLBeans on
> behalf of the XML PMC. They are, I hope, acting as an involved parent, not
> just delegating to the Incubator PMC. So Ted ought to be working with the
> Incubator PMC to en
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I have similar reservations about prior approval by target projects as a
> > prerequisite for acceptance by the incubator.
>
> It is not, in fact.
>
> The rule is simple: a PMC has to vote that it wants that project.
>
> The PMC can be the Incu
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I would support JetSpeed+Pluto+WSRP4J+possibly others
eventually becoming [a TLP].
Agreed. Other candidates that have been suggested by one person or another
include:
Turbine
Velocity
Lucene (or to db.apache.org?)
Struts
separately or in some semantically relate
> I did not mean a PMC member, but any dedicated ASF member.
> I was simply reminding all that we needed someone to step up to
> be the podling's shepherd.
Ah, ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding. From Nicola Ken's message, he
seems to be offering that he'll act as the PMC representative for the
> We have not voted on any definitive resolution about this, but currently
> there is an informal rule sprung out of necessity that each incubating
> project should have someone from Apache that sponsors and actively works
> with the project, and a shepherd from the PMC that oversees and reports
>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Jakarta has too much on its plate and should probably be closed to new
> > projects until more of the existing ones are promoted to TLP status,
> > so I'd suggest DB, instead. But it ought not come to that, given the
> > Board's TLP directive.
> Embedd
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > That is exactly what I said. It requires a shepherd; someone
> > who is the go-to/go-between.
>
> On that we agree. The only point of difference appears to be the nature of
> the Shephard. You seem(ed) to be saying that it had to be a member of the
> Incubator PMC,
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:11 AM
My understanding from discussion with Sam and Ken was that creation
of a new
TLP or migrating to an existing one would be an exit, not entry
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I'm +1 on Directory being in Jakarta if it is not possible for a TLP to
be an exit strategy, and then reassessing its TLP-ness later.
If that were an entry criteria, I'd agree with the concept, although Jakarta
has too much on its plate and should probably be closed to new p
Sam Ruby wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:11 AM
My understanding from discussion with Sam and Ken was that creation
of a new
TLP or migrating to an existing one would be an exit, not entry, issue.
That's correct.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
That is exactly what I said. It requires a shepherd; someone
who is the go-to/go-between.
On that we agree. The only point of difference appears to be the nature of
the Shephard. You seem(ed) to be saying that it had to be a member of the
Incubator PMC, whereas I'm suggest
> That is exactly what I said. It requires a shepherd; someone
> who is the go-to/go-between.
On that we agree. The only point of difference appears to be the nature of
the Shephard. You seem(ed) to be saying that it had to be a member of the
Incubator PMC, whereas I'm suggesting that the shepha
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 03:40 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Without a clear sense of responsibility, the end result
are that podlings are essentially left on their own and
"every" Incubator member thinks someone else is
doing the oversight. :/
I really thought that
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Without a clear sense of responsibility, the end result
> are that podlings are essentially left on their own and
> "every" Incubator member thinks someone else is
> doing the oversight. :/
I really thought that I had provided a clearer picture than that. Who has
the "clea
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, Ted Leung wrote:
On 9/18/2003 4:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 08:16 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
See my previous post. The Incubator itself can accept projects, if
it so
chooses. The project can then sit in the Incuba
On 9/18/2003 4:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 08:16 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
See my previous post. The Incubator itself can accept projects, if it so
chooses. The project can then sit in the Incubator as long as the
Incubator wants to allow it. But for exit, it w
Without a clear sense of responsibility, the end result
are that podlings are essentially left on their own and
"every" Incubator member thinks someone else is
doing the oversight. :/
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 02:47 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
we need someone in the Incubator to *accept
> we need someone in the Incubator to *accept* being
> the official shepherd for the podling. We cannot accept
> a project into Incubator without someone with the
> Incubator watching over it.
That is a new criteria to me. Hadn't heard that one before. Personally, I
don't think that it scales.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> > Sander Striker wrote:
> > > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:11 AM
>
> > > My understanding from discussion with Sam and Ken was that creation of
a new
> > > TLP or migrating to an existing one would be an exit, not
Sander Striker wrote:
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:11 AM
My understanding from discussion with Sam and Ken was that creation of a new
TLP or migrating to an existing one would be an exit, not entry, issue.
That's correct. However, it wouldn'
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
> > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:11 AM
>
> > My understanding from discussion with Sam and Ken was that creation of a new
> > TLP or migrating to an existing one would be an exit, not entry, is
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Please see:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheDirectoryProject
>
> What needs be done to adopt this project for inbubation, other than a vote
> to accept it, getting CLAs from the project members, and setting up the
> infrastructure?
i'm +1 on acceptin
On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 08:16 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
See my previous post. The Incubator itself can accept projects, if it
so
chooses. The project can then sit in the Incubator as long as the
Incubator wants to allow it. But for exit, it will need *some* PMC to
accept it, or for the
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:11 AM
> My understanding from discussion with Sam and Ken was that creation of a new
> TLP or migrating to an existing one would be an exit, not entry, issue.
That's correct. However, it wouldn't make much s
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 04:58:04PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >...
> > What needs be done to adopt this project for inbubation, other than a
vote
> > to accept it, getting CLAs from the project members, and setting up the
> > infrastructure?
> Since there is no (current) P
See my previous post. The Incubator itself can accept projects, if it so
chooses. The project can then sit in the Incubator as long as the
Incubator wants to allow it. But for exit, it will need *some* PMC to
accept it, or for the Board to agree to creating a new PMC for it.
The proposal calls for
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 04:58:04PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>...
> What needs be done to adopt this project for inbubation, other than a vote
> to accept it, getting CLAs from the project members, and setting up the
> infrastructure?
Since there is no (current) PMC stating they need this proj
Is this going to be a top level project or has an existing PMC agreed to
accept it? My impression is that the board has to agree to a new top
level project, but I'm not positive about this.
Ted
On 9/17/2003 1:58 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Please see:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.c
98 matches
Mail list logo
