Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:04:46PM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Put in tangible terms, I would much prefer to see a incubator puruse a
>> vote of [no] confidence in the Geronimo PPC than to have the incubator
>> continue to debate the name of the project.
> Calling this a bikesh
On Dec 1, 2003, at 4:18 PM, Brian McCallister wrote:
Hmm, how about:
Apache ctx.lookup("apache/j2ee/name");
It's unpronounceable, but so is httpd ;-)
I can pronounce it, but I then have to wipe my screen :D
geir
-Brian
On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 03:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Dec 0
On Dec 1, 2003, at 12:53 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
In any event, I would table this to be resolved by the Geronimo
what-ever-we-call-this-thing-currently-labelled-PPMC.
Yikes. We don't have enough bicyles for this.
Can we just call it the PPMC, until we decide to change the ASF bylaws
and rem
On Nov 30, 2003, at 8:53 PM, Nick Chalko wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
"Depot"
+1
+1 I like it. The sense of gathering and movement. with a
Industrial feel. Nice.
And whoever is in charge can be the "Depot Despot"
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:04:46PM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Put in tangible terms, I would much prefer to see a incubator puruse a
> vote of [no] confidence in the Geronimo PPC than to have the incubator
> continue to debate the name of the project.
There is no Geronimo PMC.
The mere fact that
Hmm, how about:
Apache ctx.lookup("apache/j2ee/name");
It's unpronounceable, but so is httpd ;-)
-Brian
On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 03:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:18:15AM -0800, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
On 12/1/03 12:16 AM, "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:18:15AM -0800, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> On 12/1/03 12:16 AM, "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 07:10:16PM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Appropriating the name "Geronimo" for our uses will cause, and has
> >> caused, controversy.
On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 08:06 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Then we have to prevent such discussions in the future by setting
clearer rules. Ideas?
Possible addition:
"The name should not be a name of a person, geographical entity, of
religious nature or generally insulting. Since the definition
>>> 2) Identify the PPMC who gets to name this project - and hold them
>>> accountable for their decision.
> > We are not deciding on the name but on the need or not to have a name
> > change. In case for a name change, this will surely be the case.
> At which point, they will be autonomous until t
Sam Ruby wrote:
Put in tangible terms, I would much prefer to see a incubator puruse a
vote of [no] confidence in the Geronimo PPC than to have the incubator
continue to debate the name of the project.
That would clear up a lot.
+1 from a non-voter.
.V
-
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I very much like the government model that the ASF board operates on.
It does not meddle in PMC decisions. If the board does not like the way
some project is operating - it typically has only one rather blunt
instrument to use: disband the PMC. This has the nice side bene
> I very much like the government model that the ASF board operates on.
> It does not meddle in PMC decisions. If the board does not like the way
> some project is operating - it typically has only one rather blunt
> instrument to use: disband the PMC. This has the nice side benefit as
> it encou
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
...
1) Have the incubator PMC identify a clear set of constraints that
apply to *all* names. Vote on them, document them, and move on.
Right. What is our policy?
ATM here is our rule:
"
Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist a
> I'm changing my vote, not because I don't believe in my earlier
> thoughts, but becausewe are wasting so much time and energy on something
> that should be much simpler.
This gets my vote for the most unprincipled vote in this whole thread.
Andreas
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
The Geronimo folks are talking about making logos and there seems to
be a desire to have official signoff on the name. Please vote on one
of the following choices:
[ ] - Let them keep "Geronimo" as the official name.
[ ] - Punt the decision t
Sam Ruby wrote:
...
1) Have the incubator PMC identify a clear set of constraints that apply
to *all* names. Vote on them, document them, and move on.
Right. What is our policy?
ATM here is our rule:
"
Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist and
check www.nameprotect.co
"Brian Behlendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Despite this, I like Geronimo as a name. However, I think it'd be a poor
> choice for two reasons previously noted: other software products already
> using that name, and the *potential* it has to cause quite a bit of
> trouble. It's really not t
Sam Ruby wrote:
The inevitable result of these two factors is an interminable discussion
on the naming of a project.
IMHO, the right answer is *not* to buck this up to the incubator PMC, or
to members, or *gasp* to the board. A much better approach would be:
1) Have the incubator PMC identify
On 12/1/03 12:16 AM, "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 07:10:16PM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
>> ...
>> Appropriating the name "Geronimo" for our uses will cause, and has
>> caused, controversy.
>
> I believe the only controversy has been from people who state that th
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 07:10:16PM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
>...
> Appropriating the name "Geronimo" for our uses will cause, and has
> caused, controversy.
I believe the only controversy has been from people who state that the
name will cause controversy. IOW, it is entirely self-generated, rathe
There have counted at least 5 +1s (not counting mine that is ;-)
Therefore I will start the official incubation of Apache Ruper.
This will be the roadmap:
1 - add a status file in the incubator CVS under:
incubator/site/projects/ruper.cwiki
that will be published here:
http://incu
Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Roy made a comment that a condition for leaving the incubator is that
> > the name be changed. I hadn't heard that before
> I said that the condition was that it would be reconsidered
Sorry to misunderstand. Thanks for the clarification.
-
Roy made a comment that a condition for leaving the incubator is that
the
name be changed. I hadn't heard that before, but those are two
incompatible
views.
I said that the condition was that it would be reconsidered; basically,
that any comments to the effect that it is now "too late" or the na
23 matches
Mail list logo
