Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive

2006-04-11 Thread Leo Simons
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 08:20:00PM +0800, Gav wrote: > > I know *I* decided a few weeks ago not to spend any more time at any > > intersection between the wider geronimo community and the incubation stuff > > because its become obvious that my opinion on a variety of stuff doesn't > > mesh well

Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive

2006-04-11 Thread Upayavira
Gav wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Leo Simons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, 10 April 2006 9:54 PM >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive >> >> Still thinki

RE: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive

2006-04-11 Thread Gav....
> -Original Message- > From: Leo Simons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 10 April 2006 9:54 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive > > Still thinking about this... > > ...just wanted to

Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive

2006-04-10 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
Congrats on that 1.0, btw... geir Roy T. Fielding wrote: Umm, releases are packages that are supplied to the public. I don't vote on release candidates that are not in final bit form. Unless the exact names and bits are used that are expected to be placed on dist once it is approved, my vote w

Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive

2006-04-10 Thread Roy T. Fielding
Umm, releases are packages that are supplied to the public. I don't vote on release candidates that are not in final bit form. Unless the exact names and bits are used that are expected to be placed on dist once it is approved, my vote will not be given. If I were responsible for the project, then

RE: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)

2006-04-10 Thread Noel J. Bergman
James Strachan wrote: > so far after 4 days we've just had one vote from the Incubator PMC > So how about we broaden membership of the Incubator PMC to include > anyone interested from another PMC (rather than just Apache Members > only)? [The] effect would be [allowing] folks who are actually >

Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive

2006-04-10 Thread Leo Simons
Still thinking about this... ...just wanted to note that the incubator PMC is responsive for some stuff but not for other stuff. For example * when you raise a generic issue like this you get an answer or some kind of feedback within a few hours or at most a few days. * simpler questions of

Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)

2006-04-10 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 4/10/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/10/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/10/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get > > > involved on a particular project, folks from t

Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)

2006-04-10 Thread James Strachan
On 4/10/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/10/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get > > involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on > > their behalf. > > I would think that

Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)

2006-04-10 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On 4/10/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get > involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on > their behalf. I would think that to be contrary to the incubators intentions. In effect, it would le