Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> >Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
> >not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
>
> I did not know that technical decisions were the responsibilities of
> the PMC/PPMC. Could you explain further?
See
http:/
+1
-Brian
On Feb 17, 2006, at 10:09 AM, James Strachan wrote:
In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
ActiveMQ community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
the 2nd candidate of the 4.0-M4 release.
We would now like to request the permission of the Inc
Technical decisions do not belong to the PMC/PPMC. Nor do they belong
in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's get the ball rolling and attack these on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/20/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Why are you being so negat
On Feb 18, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
I did not know that technical decisions were the responsibilities of
the PMC/PPMC. Could you explain further?
Being negat
+1! (non binding)
Regards,
Hiram
On Feb 17, 2006, at 1:09 PM, James Strachan wrote:
In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
ActiveMQ community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
the 2nd candidate of the 4.0-M4 release.
We would now like to request the
On 17 Feb 2006, at 22:22, Brett Porter wrote:
On 2/18/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are right, we need to set guidelines for selecting inital
committers. Not sure where to start. ideas are welcome.
The other alternative is to add all 37 to lower the barrier to entry
and c
Thanks,
Jacopo
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Fixed. Sorry about being so sloppy.
Regards,
Alan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
