On 4/12/07, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...There's just this one little tidbit - if the IPMC votes to *release*
something, that something should then actually be released. "Release"
has a specific meaning and we (have to) do "distribution at no charge
to the general public" of them. I
And this is why we asked the IPMC to ratify the distribution package,
not to release it. Minor language stuff, big consequences.
Anyhow, the next release seems to be after we stabilize our api (just
did a package rename from wicket to org.apache.wicket, and the xml
namespace is also changed from
On 4/12/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* when necessary *
given some of the problems that have been percolating all the way to
general@, there are some problems in mentorships. The hammer is only
applicable to things that are not acceptable ever - backroom (offlist)
decisi
On 4/12/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but
> it presumes the Mentor == ASF Member (and all members may join the iPMC
> with a ping-ack). Veto to that interpretation - you were right... needs
> to be updated.
this is a new and radically different interpretation. changing
Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/12/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> mentors are elected to the IPMC by the proposal approval vote
Elected by being nominated to the iPMC through an iPMC member's nomination
of them (same as everywhere).
>> members who wish to join the IPMC do so
> In principle, I would suggest that we grant IPMC karma to Members in
> the same way we grant karma to private lists.
The Incubator PMC formally voted long along to adopt the policy that ASF
Members are entitled to join the Incubator PMC upon request. Technically,
we left room for a vote if some
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> members who wish to join the IPMC do so by the grace of the chair
> (they send a request to the list and then the chair acts)
No, it isn't grace of the chair. The Incubator PMC voted to adopt the
policy towards ASF Members. It isn't an act of the Chair at all.
Hi Leo,
Please take my comments as trying to really understand your concerns.
On Apr 12, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
There's just this one little tidbit - if the IPMC votes to
*release* something, that something should then actually be
released. "Release" has a specific meaning and
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> If the podling discovers something else that's wrong, or for some other
> reason decides not to release, are you suggesting that somehow the IPMC
> is going to go and release it anyway?
To clarify - the RM, whomever created the tarball, always has the last
word until th
