Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
There was a discussion on the board list at the end of 2002. What was
basically the point was that every external codebase would come through
Incubator. No exceptions (for obvious reasons). IIRC the conclusion
was that no P
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Sander Striker wrote:
> > There was a discussion on the board list at the end of 2002. What was
> > basically the point was that every external codebase would come through
> > Incubator. No exceptions (for obvious reasons). IIRC the conclusion
> > was that no PMC was
Sander Striker wrote:
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 18:49, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
First of all, we are in the process of deciding and clearly documenting
that only TLPs are to be incubated. Why? Because in Apache there are
only TLPs. Thus, Ruper is incubat
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> First of all, we are in the process of deciding and clearly documenting
> that only TLPs are to be incubated. Why? Because in Apache there are
> only TLPs.
I don't agree. The Incubator has a dual role. One is the building of new
Projects, but the other is vetting all
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 18:49, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > First of all, we are in the process of deciding and clearly documenting
> > that only TLPs are to be incubated. Why? Because in Apache there are
> > only TLPs. Thus, Ruper is incubated on the p
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> First of all, we are in the process of deciding and clearly documenting
> that only TLPs are to be incubated. Why? Because in Apache there are
> only TLPs. Thus, Ruper is incubated on the premises that it wants to
> become a TLP for artifact handling
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 05:08, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> There is some confusion here, I'll try to be clear.
>
> First of all, we are in the process of deciding and clearly documenting
> that only TLPs are to be incubated. Why? Because in Apache there are
> only TLPs. Thus, Ruper is incubated on
There is some confusion here, I'll try to be clear.
First of all, we are in the process of deciding and clearly documenting
that only TLPs are to be incubated. Why? Because in Apache there are
only TLPs. Thus, Ruper is incubated on the premises that it wants to
become a TLP for artifact handlin
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 11:10, Leo Simons wrote:
> The only one who can change
> a charter is the board, or the collective members, right?
> Given the responses given here by some of the board
> members already, I doubt the board feels like it.
What usually happens is that a project produces an amen
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I would propose those documents be changed to state that what is
outlined above is a prerequisite for entry into the incubator.
Is this something that requires a member vote as it affects everyone
here because the production of useful software is what we're doing here
at Apach
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 09:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > You speak as if there was no possible way to get into Apache before the
> > Incubator.
>
> That is not what I said. Clearly it could not be true, since the Incubator
> was not created until October 2002.
>
> Neither one of us was present wh
> You speak as if there was no possible way to get into Apache before the
> Incubator.
That is not what I said. Clearly it could not be true, since the Incubator
was not created until October 2002.
Neither one of us was present when the Board created the Incubator, but you
can ask and you can re
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 22:37, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > > I would propose those documents be changed to state that what is
> > > > outlined above is a prerequisite for entry into the incubator.
> > > -1.
>
> > So you can veto a vote I would propose to members I feel is in the best
> > interest o
> > > I would propose those documents be changed to state that what is
> > > outlined above is a prerequisite for entry into the incubator.
> > -1.
> So you can veto a vote I would propose to members I feel is in the best
> interest of preserving the integrity of the software here.
Where did you
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 20:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > I also don't think it's really that much work on the behalf of a
> > project
> > trying to enter Apache to do a little leg work in resolving that before
> > entering.
>
> I didn't say they shouldn't try -- I said it wasn't necessary.
> As fa
I also don't think it's really that much work on the behalf of a
project
trying to enter Apache to do a little leg work in resolving that before
entering.
I didn't say they shouldn't try -- I said it wasn't necessary.
As far as I am concerned, no existing project should be allowed
to create autono
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 18:07, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > There is no reason for a project to have a final destination until
> > it has to go somewhere other than incubator, at which point it can
> > decide whether it wants to be a TLP (calling for a bo
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> There is no reason for a project to have a final destination until
> it has to go somewhere other than incubator, at which point it can
> decide whether it wants to be a TLP (calling for a board vote) or
> part of an existing project (calling for that p
Jason van Zyl wrote:
What's going to happen with AltRMI and the FtpServer? They just sit in
the incubator indefinitely? There's no IP issues as these came from
within Apache anyway? If an incubated codebase has no slated home within
then I would ask how it even landed here in the first place?
Both
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 18:58, Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
> > Adam Jack contacted me personally just
> > to shoot the shit about Ruper and I told him his code would be welcome
> > in Maven.
>
> I was hoping that Apache was somehow Utopian and folks could co-operate,
> bury ego, and work for the greater
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 21:47, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 18:33, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > There is no reason for a project to have a final destination until
> > it has to go somewhere other than incubator, at which point it can
> > decide whether it wants to be a TLP (calling for
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 18:33, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> There is no reason for a project to have a final destination until
> it has to go somewhere other than incubator, at which point it can
> decide whether it wants to be a TLP (calling for a board vote) or
> part of an existing project (calling fo
> I don't care if there is some overlap with Wagon, nor do I care for
> any further discussion about which one is better -- if I can't find
> some objective criteria for evaluating software, then I obviously
> don't need that software. Once I need it, I can figure out for myself
> which one is bet
> Adam Jack contacted me personally just
> to shoot the shit about Ruper and I told him his code would be welcome
> in Maven.
I was hoping that Apache was somehow Utopian and folks could co-operate,
bury ego, and work for the greater good of softwaredom, yada yada. When you
invited the Ruper code
There is no reason for a project to have a final destination until
it has to go somewhere other than incubator, at which point it can
decide whether it wants to be a TLP (calling for a board vote) or
part of an existing project (calling for that project's pmc to vote).
Maybe we should have a six mo
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 13:06, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Jason,
>
> The short answer is that knowledge of the final destination is not a
> pre-requisite for entrance into the Incubator. The minimum requirement for
> entrance is sponsorship by a Member or Officer, and acceptance by the
> Incubator PM
Jason,
The short answer is that knowledge of the final destination is not a
pre-requisite for entrance into the Incubator. The minimum requirement for
entrance is sponsorship by a Member or Officer, and acceptance by the
Incubator PMC.
I've no particular care about where AltRMI or FtpServer end
Hi,
I was just looking at the project page and how is it possible that the
incubator PMC can sponsor code coming into Apache. There are five
projects listed there:
AltRMI
FtpServer
Directory
Ruper
Geronimo
So what is the deal with these projects? They are destined to become
top-level projects? E
28 matches
Mail list logo
