Dain Sundstrom wrote:
[...]
I suggest we add a "For corporations" section to the "Incubator
Guidelines Documentation" which would contain things, like:
+1 so far. I agree that better, more detailed guidelines would help
organizations or communities not familiar with the process prevent
confusi
On 12/24/05, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Dudziak wrote:
>
>
> > If now for instance, the DB PMC would somehow automatically get the
> > the incubation mails for the projects that it voted into incubation
> > and its reports, oversight from this PMC might enhance. After all i
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:19 PM, Ted Leung wrote:
To us an Apache project is an effort of the ASF. To the majority
of people out there, being an Apache project (rightly or wrongly)
is branding stamp. You might not like it, but that's how many
people treat it. And that's why one of the firs
David Crossley wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
I only committed changes to the one source file I changed.
The instructions at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html#Using+a+local+Forrest+installation
are excellent and worked well, but svn status showed many diffs on the
built side, w
On Dec 23, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 23, 2005 12:47:26 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Q: The Incubator controls who leaves... who controls who
enters? It seems like both are needed.
A: Yes, and there are controls for who enters a
-1 from me :)
If we have access to the history, then we should take advantage
of it. This is especially true when the code is from public
repos, or, at least, non-private donators.
On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
+1 from me. Start with a snapshot.
On 12/23/05, Justin Eren
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> Yes, but we can't think of incubation failure as "failure" - that's
> actually a successful outcome for the incubator, as it's doing its
> job in that case. Not everyone will want to work our way, not every
> project will catch a diverse community interest, etc
On 12/23/05, Erik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23.12.2005, at 16:57, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > ...
> >> I think that there's little downside to this. A check on the
> >> Incubator PMC is the board - any member or
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
If now for instance, the DB PMC would somehow automatically get the
the incubation mails for the projects that it voted into incubation
and its reports, oversight from this PMC might enhance. After all it
involves more work to actively delete mails than to not get them in
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous. The foundation
> should go where our PMCs and our members want. -- justin
I reckon that the way to handle it is to document our
processes properly. If each new podling got involved
in fine-tuning the conten
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> >IMHO it would be better to ask pmc'er to vote not for a passive sponsorship
> >but an active promise to commit resources to provide oversight for the
> >podling.
>
> When asked to vote for a new podling on the WS PMC, I never understood a
11 matches
Mail list logo
