+1
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:18 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPM
How could they contribute when they were not given access? These guys
have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
To: general@in
As a general statement, it is difficult if not impossible to do the
right thing when the rules keep changing.
The only sensible thing at this point is to continue the CeltiXfire
project as originally proposed and accepted.
If there are any retrospective issues or problems let's get them on this
o
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett
Rooney
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:05 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How could they contribute when they were not given acces
: Policy on Initial Committership
On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> How could they contribute when they were not given access?
The same way any non-commiter contributor contributes to a project:
1) JIRA - creating JIRA items, submitting patches, etc... I admit, the
CXF
J
t publicly and with the involvement of
EVERYONE who was involved with the formation of the project.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 16:05, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How could they contribute when they were not given access? These
No, let's be clear, this discussion is all about how someone knows the
right thing to do, which is very hard when the rules keep changing.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett
Rooney
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 12:58 PM
To: ge
Hi,
It seems like there's clear consensus now around this question of the
initial committers list. Thanks to everyone for joining the debate.
A couple of things stand out to me from this: it is important to follow
the process and treat approval of a proposal in terms of the agreement
it repres
;s at least get CXF off to a good start!
Thanks,
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:31 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> How co
006 2:09 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural
> for
> a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
>What we saw with CeltiXFire was a piling on of a lot of people who
wanted >to be on the initial contributors list --- voted in by virtue of
having >self-signed up --- and whom had never contributed anything to
the project.
FWIW that isn't correct. The individuals on the list had either
contribut
Once again, no piling on.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:47 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from
Ok, fair enough - ;-)
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:28 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
> Once again, no piling on.
Opinions appear to differ, although I
ator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:22:36PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> I do not think there has been any piling on. We reviewed each name on
> the list carefully and a name only went on the list if we were
convinced
> that the individual ha
Ok, thanks.
I understand the best thing to do now is to get the project going,
following the process, and as input from this discussion one of the
first items of business will be to review the committer list.
Regarding the discussion about the future, yes, I agree it is a good
idea to have some
Having just been through it ;-) this sounds very reasonable to me.
I am not sure the issue of emeritus committers needs to be addressed
since that can be handled by the project once it's up and running...
The main thing seems to be the clarification around the initial
committer list and PPMC mem
I agree that if we had had a more formal review of the initial
committers list during the proposal process we would have avoided the
kind of conflicts that arose after the proposal was approved.
I would also agree with some other comments that this sort of policy is
intended as a guideline since
17 matches
Mail list logo
