Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 11:46 PM:
> > Understanding that "BEA has absolutely no intention of dropping
> > support of the XMLBeans project", do you feel that XMLBeans is ready
> > to leave the Incubator, or would it benefit from further stay?
> I think
Noel J. Bergman wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 11:46 PM:
>> 6 BEA-employed committers + 5 independent committers
>
>> I think there is definitely sufficient community interest to keep the
>> project going; however, it would probably move a lot slower if BEA
>> were to drop XMLBeans today.
>
> Un
On 14 Jun 2004, at 23:07, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see one or two quantitative rules (such as one
about independent committers to allow for vetoes)
IMHO, that would be a requirement for projects prior to *entering* the
incubator.
--
Steven Noelshtt
> 6 BEA-employed committers + 5 independent committers
> I think there is definitely sufficient community interest to keep the
> project going; however, it would probably move a lot slower if BEA
> were to drop XMLBeans today.
Understanding that "BEA has absolutely no intention of dropping suppor
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I think the problem we are faced with is determining how to define
> a "healthy community" when used as a criterion for exiting the
> incubator.
I'm perfectly comfortable with adopting Justice Stewart's famous comment
when it comes to defining a healthy ASF community, rathe
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
...
Sounds like we're all in agreement here (at least all those who have
posted to the list in the last few days).
I'm happy to be in 'violent' and silent agreement :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(di
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > Not quite. The PPMC is a subgroup officially established by the
> > incubator PMC, containing a named list of individuals who have
> > agreed to participate on the PPMC.
>
> I think we need to make its status as an official subgroup of the
> incubat
Roy T. Fielding wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 3:40 PM:
>> Personally, I'd like to see one or two quantitative rules (such as
>> one about independent committers to allow for vetoes) and then leave
>> the rest up to a voting body that will evaluate graduation against
>> some general guidelines. I
Leo Simons wrote:
> Shall we change the policy docs then?
> Instead of
>"No single organization supplies more than 50% of the active
>committers (must be at least 3 independent committers)"
> we make that
> "The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor
>(there's sever
Leo Simons wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 4:01 PM:
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>> The more quantitative it is, the more a new project can know what
>> they have ahead of them and the less familiarity with the project's
>> community is required to cast an informed vote on graduation (just
>> look up the
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
The more quantitative it is, the more a new project can know what they
have ahead of them and the less familiarity with the project's community
is required to cast an informed vote on graduation (just look up the
numbers).
I know an example or two of unhealthy communites where
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
IMO, there ought to be a sufficient independent community such that
if commercial in
Personally, I'd like to see one or two quantitative rules (such as one
about independent committers to allow for vetoes) and then leave the
rest
up to a voting body that will evaluate graduation against some general
guidelines. I also think the voting body should be the PPMC, which is
made up of
Noel J. Bergman wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 12:14 PM:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> Leo Simons wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
>>>
>>> IMO, ther
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Leo Simons wrote:
> > > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > > > I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
> > >
> > > me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
> >
> > IMO, there ought to be a sufficient independent community such that
On Jun 13, 2004, at 7:45 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote on Friday, June 11, 2004 2:24 PM:
I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
hmm. Do you have an opinion?
IMO, there ought to be a sufficient
Noel J. Bergman wrote on Sunday, June 13, 2004 4:31 PM:
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> Leo Simons wrote:
[is the rule that a project just needs 3 independent committers, or
is there an additional rule that no more than 50% of the committers
must be part of a si
Leo Simons wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote on Friday, June 11, 2004 2:24 PM:
>>I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
> me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
> hmm. Do you have an opinion?
IMO, there ought to be a sufficient independent community such that if
commerci
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > Leo Simons wrote:
> > > [is the rule that a project just needs 3 independent committers, or
> > > is there an additional rule that no more than 50% of the committers
> > > must be part of a single company?]
> > >
> > > IIRC that 50% rule applies, bu
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote on Friday, June 11, 2004 2:24 PM:
On Friday, June 11, 2004, at 04:01 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
[is the rule that a project just needs 3 independent committers, or
is there an additional rule that no more than 50% of the committers
must be part of a single com
Roy T. Fielding wrote on Friday, June 11, 2004 2:24 PM:
> On Friday, June 11, 2004, at 04:01 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>> [is the rule that a project just needs 3 independent committers, or
>> is there an additional rule that no more than 50% of the committers
>> must be part of a single company?]
21 matches
Mail list logo
