Noel J. Bergman wrote:
To a certain extent, the incubator is evolving, too. If evolving procedures
that are not being disseminated, that's one problem.
I propose that a good way to address this situation will be to make active
use of the new JIRA install, Serge and I have scheduled for next Thu
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
From my point of view, "disclaimer" page would be enough and
the best "alternative".
+1
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comm
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
is an effort undergoing incubation at the Apache
Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the . Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until
a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications,
and decision making process have stabilized
Leo Simons wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
I would go further. Essentially, a release by a podling would require
a vote by the incubator PMC to do so.
a release by *any* project requires its supervising PMC to vote
it through. Since for podlings, the supervising PMC is by definition
the incubator PMC
David Jencks wrote:
On Saturday, October 4, 2003, at 03:20 AM, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
== Releases ==
As podlings are not yet fully accepted as part of the Apache Software
Foundation, any software releases (including code held in publically
available CVS) made by Podlings will not be endorse
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The name "Sponsoring Entity" is wierd, and the more I think of it, the
more it seems artificial.
What we need is something that sponsors the project, and will accept
it, and someone that mentors the project, which are 2 concepts, not 3
as now.
Nicolas:
I'm +1 on
Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
* I'd suggest the term "candidate" (as is used in
Roles_and_Responsibilities) or "project" (as in "incubating
[sub]project"),
or even the term "pod", rather than the diminutive "podlet" in describing
the "entity being incubated"
+1
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAI
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The name "Sponsoring Entity" is wierd, and the more I think of it, the
more it seems artificial.
Yup. It was the best I could think of at the
time :<.
What we need is something that sponsors the project, and w
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Just wondering who the mentor is for the Directory Project? I would
suspect
that Noel is the official Sponsor however I have not seen any discussions
concerning the projects mentor.
AFAIK, Nicola Ken and I are doing that duty.
Also wanted to check and see
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi gang,
Okay, okay, I'm exaggerating. Its real cool there's people
volunteering to write all this stuff, and the drafts are not
*that* formal. I'm just suggesting we make it easy for ourselves
and don't try to write "perfect" and "waterproof" docs. W
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I also want to make sure that we well know where things stand in
every incubation moment, as there has been enough confusion
withdouble-triple PMC concurrent votes.
+1
That said, I also think that we need *one* do
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
If we want to make sure something is non-normative, it's very simple
(and appropriate) to put a rider paragraph in it stating that where it
conflicts with the policy, the policy over-rides. That's a common
approach and gets over having to worry too much about what nam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks.
I need to be able to use the FTPServer within my process (for junit-based
testing purposes). Is there a way I can do that ?
Here is an example [1] of a junit-based test that includes an embedded
container. The test code that pulls in named services and does wh
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 16:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think that producing a single repository, or at least a set of
mechanisms that allow a single storage facility to look like a
repository with multiple interfaces, is a task for infrastructure
and commons to work out (m
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Small note - some of the participants on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] are
discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s)
of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut-and-dried
implementation
solution. Some consider this area to be much more than an
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 21:47, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Small note - some of the participants on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] are
discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s)
of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 23:18, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I have challenged you to give me a scenerio that I can't satisfy with
something like the current Maven repository. Instead you drone on ad
nauseum about the theoretical. Let
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 00:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason:
I must confess that I am intrigued by your approach to collaboration!
That's because you're at least as deficient as I am in the realm of
collaboration. Neither you or I are any great shining e
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 02:50 AM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:08, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 00:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason:
I must confess that I am intrigued
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola,
I suppose the only slight reservation would be who is accountable?
The old "Fred Bloggs is looking after that" can kick in. I think the
Incubator PMC also wants to be able to hold people accountable for
inubation activities. Gets
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola,
I suppose the only slight reservation would be who is accountable?
The old "Fred Bloggs is looking after that" can kick in. I think
the Incubator PMC also wants to be able to hold
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
...
> An important
aspect here is visibility of status and pending actions. This takes
me back to the discussion about using JIRA - that's the sort of
example where I could checkout open-actions on any incubator project
- and based
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
+1 if you mean to incubate a particular project, since it seems that you
have a set of codebases and a community to start.
However, unless it is willing to be more inclusive of other related
projects, I don't think that it should be permitted to refer to itself as
the Apac
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
"Depot"
+1
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon |
||
|
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 12:20, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The "Incubator Reorg" threads have brought the Incubator to the
definition of a new set of rules, that aim to simplify, streamline and
generally make the process of incubation more effective.
It's time to wrap it u
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Hi,
I have a couple of questions concerning
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ExitingIncubator
Some of them have already been asked (with no reply), some haven't.
* No non ASL or ASL compatbile dependencies in the code base
In the case of JaxMe, there are sever
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Forgot something:
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
* Check of project name for trademark issues
How do I do that? In particular, how do I record that I have
checked and found no issues?
*When* do I check? At the time the project wishes to exit incubation
status? Or as soo
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Noel,
No - I agree :>.
My comments about a mentor is nothing to do with Status files or the
like. It's all about having one formal link between the current ASF
and the particular project in incubation.
In fact that person doing all the status reports etc. I would se
+1 on everything below (including the tinker's cuss).
Stephen.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 03:43:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
I'm confused by what you are saying. Do you believe there should
be one person in an authoritative position for each PPM
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
I will absolutely agree that we want to keep [rules] to a minimum. But
that minimum must exist for the ASF (as an organisation) to work.
Agreed. Some of which I think are for the Incubator PMC to impose on itself
as necessary, but don't ef
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
IMHO, as long as a project still requires a "point man" (or
as long as the PMC still requires such a person in order to
be kept up to date of what is happening in the directory
project), the project is not ready for graduation.
Absolutely! A good tes
Leo Simons wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no
need for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project to be
in incubation anymore.
Exactly!
S
Leo Simons wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no
need for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project
Leo Simons wrote:
I propose we release MerlinDeveloper from incubation and allow avalon to
import the code.
Please place your votes:
[X] +1 -- yes
--
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon
Leo Simons wrote:
I proposed we release MerlinDeveloper from incubation and allow avalon
to import the code. The Incubator PMC has voted. The results of the vote
are as follows:
+1 - 13 (of which 3 non-binding)
+0 - 0
-1 - 0
there's consensus; the vote passes. This concludes the incubation for
[X] +1 - The Geronimo project has met the requirements
for incubation and will be recommended to the
board for TLP status
[ ] -1 - The Geronimo project as not met the requirements
for incubation
--
|---|
| Magic by Merlin
Nicola - apparently you have the moral high ground on the subject of
"deescalation" . care to justify this or shall we let it drop?
Stephen.
--
|---|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
|
Nicola:
If you have a problem with my annoyance at your presumption to preach -
then present it here away from any particular project.
Stephen.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PRO
Brian McCallister wrote:
As an innocent bystander of the flamewar that spawned this email:
Nicola commented on some technical changes, it started deteriorating
into shed painting, Nicola posted an email on de-escalating conflict in
technical discussions, then Stephen attacked Nicola directly fo
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I'm quite confident that a good portion of the inhabitants
of this list doesn't care much about who is going to "win"
this flamefest.
+1
There is a sense in which a general discussion on community building
techniques and communication skills is worthwhile. I've suggested to
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I've suggested to Nicola Ken that he start work on a web page
to cover ideals, techniques and scenarios [related to community
building and conversation skills]
-1
Sorry but Nicola Ken is not qualified.
Your opinion is noted, but that is not your call to make. I asked him i
Sander Striker wrote:
From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 8:58 PM
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I'm quite confident that a good portion of the inhabitants of this
list doesn't care much about who is going to "win"
this flamefest.
+1
[X] Accept MyFaces into the Incubator
[ ] Reject MyFaces
--
|---|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org |
|
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
Please, not here. I'm quite confident that a good portion of the
inhabitants of this list doesn't care much about who is going to "win"
this flamefest. At least I am not, and I can imagine that neither
gen
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
unnecessary and unwarranted disruption of an incubator project
Let it go. No one other than you is characterizing it that way. Just let
it go.
I let it go for three months and now I'm seeing the consequences on not
speaking up earlier. If people here think it is appropri
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
unnecessary and unwarranted disruption of an incubator project
Let it go. No one other than you is characterizing it that way. Just
let
it go.
I let it go for three months and now I'm seeing the consequences on not
speaking up earlier
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Noels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 October 2004 10:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OT] How to prevent abusing Apache priviliges
>
> On 18 Oct 2004, at 02:19, thorsten wrote:
>
> > Steven Noels wrote:
> >> Nope. What Thorsten describ
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2005 3:55 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Apache Directory Developers List; Directory PPMC
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Directory exiting Incubator
>
> Alex,
>
> Continue on your pa
Sam Ruby wrote:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just
configuring gump is a royal pain in the butt.
Pppbbbttt.
Apparently creating the following is beyond Andy's abilities:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcv
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards
to the boards
Nope.
2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
Yep. Somebody needs to own each request.
I would rephrase this as:
"someone has to *champion* new requests"
Cheers Ste
Sam Ruby wrote:
James is the only project that I recall that did it of their own
initiative.
Correction - Avalon was of its own iniative.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe,
Sam Ruby wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
James is the only project that I recall that did it of their own
initiative.
Correction - Avalon was of its own iniative.
Hearing that statement makes me feel VERY good. ;-)
Zutt - thinking back to the days of the reorg
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
ASF Member status continues to maintain a certain club quality
within which privaliges ebb-and-flow toi sute the moment).
Huh?
I want you to think of two societies (a) a small society that
establishes a board which creates the notion of membership by invitation
which in
... and, to whom is the ASF Member accountable?
In all contexts, to himself/herself, but if you mean in terms of ASF related
behavior, that would be governed by our Bylaws and policies. To imply that
ASF Members are not accountable would be a horrid stretch.
I am specific asking this in the
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If
I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a
member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best
intent - it is excluding
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
What is the Incubator's purpose? What I am told from multiple sources (I
have asked about this out of interest), is that the Incubator is to be used
whenever a substantial codebase (a sub-project) is brought in from outside
the ASF, regardless of whether it is going to be
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
For example, if a Member undertakes such a
resonsibility, to whom is the member responsible and what would be the
scope of such a responsibility?
to the podling and the incubator pmc, to see that everything gets
done and done properly. similarly to the found
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stephen,
I haven't read through your material, but unless I am wrong about what I
wrote last night, an ASF Officer also qualifies.
Berin Lautenbach suggested gathering and collating material from this
discussion on the Wiki. Some related pages are:
http://nagoya.apache.o
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be
members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working
with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by
design, it wasn't ver
Phil:
Greg posted a message back on the 18th noting that a PMC vote on the
entry of the project to the incubator would be kicked off under the
private [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. I don't know the specifics of Incubator
voting policies but I guessing we will see a vote result early next week.
Step
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
If there is interest, I could try and re-word the content I put
together on the Sponsor responsibilities such that the role of
Sponsor is more oriented towards evangalist/champion, complementing
the role of Shepard.
Absolutely! The
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she
should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers.
Umm,
... and the "standard member line" gets rolled out once again
to justify the absence of incubator documentation,
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she
should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers.
Umm,
... and the "standard member line&
I have prepared a new page based on the oringal content that
Berin prepared. Here is a summary of the things I changed/added:
1. cleanup of the descriptions and terminaolgy
(product/project/sub-project) etc.
2. simplification of the description of the pmc
(complemented with addition process con
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
i refuse to be sucked any further into one of your confusions.
It's good to see we agree!
Clearly "confusion" is a central topic that underlines that issues
addressed in this thread. Obviously I'm in good company as my confusion
pales into insignificance when
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I said nothing about documentation, process, policy or accountability.
LOL
We certainly agree on this!
:-)
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Berin,
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings
Had a read. Great stuff :>.
At a quick glance, I see some things to change.
- there has not been stated a minimum community size to start
The document does state the a candidate *shall
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings
Had a read. Great stuff :>.
At a quick glance, I see some things to change.
- there has not been stated a minimum community size to start
The document does state the a candidate *s
they retain the
responsibilities, otherwise they can move onto other things, having
convinced an appropriate body in the ASF to take on the candidate.
Peoples - I am very happy to back these changes out, but I wanted to
put continue the approach of having something concrete in place to
help the
Phil Steitz wrote:
See comments inline
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I have no problem with protocol-centric projects, and no problem with
language-centric projects, but I do have a problem with
protocol-centric
projects that assume one implementation language is "best".
OK, I've seen enough langu
But
that isn't the case so I'll try my best to present the issues I see in
this email.
Zut ... Australia really is at the end of the earth relative to France!
(Zut translated into Australian is B* H***).
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Steve,
From: Stephen McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Small change in wording. "If Ted stops doing his role as Shepherd,
then I would see it as the responsibility of the XML Project PMC
Chair" to step in and find someone else."
Wooop - a compound correction to an otherwise perfect composition:
"If
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stephen,
Actually, I think you had it right the first time. The XML Project PMC
should take the first responsibility to find someone where their
representative to stop doing his role.
Actually - I disagree.
If I say that the Board is responsible. What I am saying is th
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Actually, I think you had it right the first time. The XML Project PMC
should take the first responsibility to find someone where their
representative to stop doing his role.
Actually - I disagree.
Actually, you didn't. What you did was engage in a discuss
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stephen,
If we ever sit down in some hypothetical cafe, remind me to have a talk with
you about how to present an argument for best effect. :-)
Once I got past some of your phrasing, which I consider somewhat
injudiciously selected considering your likely audience,
Han
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Steve,
Not actually sure we are disagreeing. Let me
just add some thoughts and see where we get to...
Zut ... Australia really is at the end of the earth relative to France!
(Zut translated into Australian is B* H***).
. Tell me about it. The time zones ar
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Think of this entire process as the establishment of a set of imutable
procedures that will protect us from the breakdown of their system.
Things don't work that way, Stephen. People don't. Especially the kind of
people who participate here. This is not a community o
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Once I got past some of your phrasing, which I consider somewhat
injudiciously selected considering your likely audience,
Hang on a tick - I have to look this one up!
LOL
Well, for a start, referring to every decision making body as dysfunctional
wasn't the
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I hope that the policies, procedures, responsibilities, and
ultimate accountabilities, will have a tangible and net-
positive impact on the overall development of the Apache Community.
:-)
That's it - no umbrella questions?
This is so dissapointing!
Steve!
--
Stephen
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Would be great if you could have a read through the new version of
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings
Its looking good.
One point concerning the description of the Sponsoring Entity. I
currently includes a sub-heading "Responsibilities o
Berin:
Other commens on the email later - just need to jump in on this one point.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
2. Create a table of contents for the policy reference document.
This can be started on Wiki (and I will do a first cut over the next
few days), but I think we are getting to a point whe
Berin:
Total agree with your comments and suggestions you provided in response
to Cliff.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Cliff,
Firstly - thanks for all the thoughts. Great stuff!
Totally !!
Feedback is really helpfull. The detail and obviouse attention to
content is exactly the sort of thing we
robert burrell donkin wrote:
is there anything to prevent gump builds being set up for incubating
projects?
(other than actually doing the work, of course ;)
Only the idea of using of getting JIRA settup here at Apache and using
it instead.
Stephen.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL
Stephen McConnell wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
is there anything to prevent gump builds being set up for incubating
projects?
(other than actually doing the work, of course ;)
Only the idea of using of getting JIRA settup here at Apache and using
it instead.
Retruaction
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
APACHE INCUBATOR PROJECT STATUS: -*-indented-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/09/17 13:22:24 $]
Web site: http://Incubator.Apache.Org/
Wiki page: http://Nagoya.Apache.Org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheIncubatorProjectPages
[note: the Web s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everybody's a comedian, but not everybody is funny.
Zut - I thought it was funny!
Steve.
"Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 26/09/2003 05:48:30 AM:
Please ignore this post. I saw that Nicola Ken was starting to pull up
against my tail and didn't want
I'm been following the messages concerning exit criteria and releases
and I see a conflict. If a project is under incubation, then it is not
accepted into Apache and therfore the content that is generating is
simply content under observation - not Apache content. As such, how can
a such a pro
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
So what's the final verdict on releases?
I'm wondering about this myself.
My own theory is that this entire discussion is exceeding the bounds of
duristiction of the Incubator PMC. I.e. IMVVHO if the incubated
project wants to publish an artifact it needs to do one
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
A release requires 3 +1 and a majority of those voting, wherein
the only people allowed to vote are the PMC responsible for that
code. In other words, the usual rules apply -- it is simply harder
to get the votes.
I am kind of surprised that folks think it would be any di
HO) responsible for publication -
only because it can override the opinions of the Incuabtor PMC as to
readiness of a technical artifact - as distinct from the readiness of a
community baking a artifact.
Cheers, Steve.
Everything else could almost be case by case.
Cheers,
Berin
From:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Ok - going with Apache tradition - its not the PMC that makes the
decision of a *release*.
BZZZT. According to the bylaws, the only people authorized to make
decisions
on behalf of the ASF (including the decision to release code to the
general
public) are officers or
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
My own theory is that this entire discussion is exceeding the bounds of
duristiction of the Incubator PMC.
why?
The incubator has a scope concerning "incubation". I hope the incubator
aims to to provide the role of
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Any reason why the IncubatorMussings document should not be
referended from ApacheIncubatorProjectPages ?
It is now.
Good work Berin!
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 08:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
A release requires 3 +1 and a majority of those voting, wherein
the only people allowed to vote are the PMC responsible for that
code. In other words, the usual rules apply -- it is simply harder
to g
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
The incubator has a scope concerning "incubation". I hope the incubator
aims to to provide the role of gatekeeper together with a support
infrasture the accelerate the sucessful exit of incubated projects.
so f
ormally) established by the Jakarta PMC.
From that point you have an idea what it is that you aim to enforce.
Stephen.
- robert
On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 01:15 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 08:13 AM, Roy T. Fieldi
Have been thinking along the same lines - although I wasn't able to
capture the essence as nicely as Andrew :-).
To rephrase Andrew's tricameral process, recasting with veto in mind ...
1. A Sponsoring Entity votes to accept a candidate
2. The Sponsoring Entity votes to exit the candidate.
3. In
Why are we discussing/considering the possibility of anything other than
a TLP incubation? If a project is comming in as part of another project
than an existing PMC is bringing it it in and doing so in accordance
with the policies, procedures and due-diligence that have been granted
under the
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Why are we discussing/considering the possibility of anything other
than a TLP incubation? If a project is comming in as part of another
project than an existing PMC is bringing it it in and doing so in
accordance with the policies
99 matches
Mail list logo
