It's a good thing to notify [EMAIL PROTECTED];
I think the vote was not public, isn't it ?
Maybe we should put it to the guide lines; that for non-public votes
the result shouldn't posted only only the *involved* group's list;
also to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@Craig: congrats!
-Matthias
On 8/3/06,
Notifying [EMAIL PROTECTED] of the vote at Roller for Craig Russell to
have karma.
+1s from:
Dave Johnson
Allen Gilliland
Anil Gangolli
Matt Raible
Elias Torres
Henri Yandell (PMC)
Ted Husted (PMC)
Noel Bergman (PMC)
Hen
-
To
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> (Correction)
> Looking, at this further the the CCLA is just concerned about IP, I might have
> miss-read and miss-stated. No need to start a thread based on my miss-read.
Right. The CCLA exists to *protect* that very same individual-contributor
orientation of the ASF. No
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 09:52 -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
> for accepting the project for incubation.
>
> Therefore, as the champion of this
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 8/3/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> ...BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor...
...We welcome you. There can never be enough mentors.
ok, so feel free to add my name to the list!
Done!
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
I think this is one of the options we can look at to have any member of
the project provide feedback to the spec working group - however it seems
presumptuous to use the ASL or work out details like this befor
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
>> I think this is one of the options we can look at to have any member of
>> the project provide feedback to the spec working group - however it seems
>> presumptuous to use the ASL or work out details like this before we are
>> accepted in inc
y question came down to this; if someone offers a patch, which then suggests
an improvement to the spec, does the ASL (which covers -everything- that is
offered to the ASF) adequately correspond to the RLA terms to satisfy the
spec committee? If so there's no issue; in fact it would be sufficien
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I have a question, can anyone summarize how contributions under the ASL
>> would be weaker or stronger than contributions under this RLA?
>>
> Legally they are most likely much the same - I think the questions you
> ask implies something
>
(Correction)
Looking, at this further the the CCLA is just concerned about IP, I
might have
miss-read and miss-stated. No need to start a thread based on my miss-read.
and to
If the contributor wish, and if under these terms their contributions
merits
participation, that contributor should ei
The ASF does not recognize corporate members;
Incorrect - Apace has a CCLA, and requires your employer to sign it
From icla "
For the purposes of this definition,
"control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
AMQP seems to be moving in this
direction, they've got some sort of agreement you can sign in order to
provide them feedback
I have a question, can anyone summarize how contributions under the ASL
would be weaker or stronger than contri
On 8/3/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mads, I'm not sure if you meant to vote, but it raises a dialog so I'm
forking the subject.
Mads Toftum wrote:
> I very much agree with Garretts concerns - and would be much in favor of
> not bringing the project into incubation before t
Mads, I'm not sure if you meant to vote, but it raises a dialog so I'm
forking the subject.
Mads Toftum wrote:
> I very much agree with Garretts concerns - and would be much in favor of
> not bringing the project into incubation before they have proven an
> actual community and that they can work
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> AMQP seems to be moving in this
> direction, they've got some sort of agreement you can sign in order to
> provide them feedback
I have a question, can anyone summarize how contributions under the ASL
would be weaker or stronger than contributions under this RLA?
I'd like
-1
I think that this project is premature until the spec is in an open,
inclusive process or at an acceptable standards body with compatible
licensing terms. I would embrace this project were it so.
The project is supposed to be implementations of a "standard protocol"
but the protocol in questi
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
>
I very much agree with Garretts concerns - and would be much in favor of
not bringing the project into incubation before they have proven an
actual community and that they can work the s
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
I'm not in favor of the ASF endorsing a specification that seems to be
completely under the control of a small number of companies with no
way for new developers to participate in its development. The fact
that we have done this in the past is unfortun
I'm sorry, but respectfully -1 this proposal as written. My specific objection
is to the language below, I don't see anything otherwise objectionable in the
proposal.
The ASF does not recognize corporate members; all of our contributions are
measured on an individual basis and individual merit.
Coach,
If you don't view your question as related to the vote, would you mind
reposting it to a separate or an existing thread about Glasgow?
Maybe it's just my personal preference, but I like to keep vote threads to just
votes and critical questions that were missed in the prior discussion (w
+1
Per Cliff Schmidt's suggestion, reposting the question here instead - so
please respond using this new thread:
What is the possible (estimated) minimum implementation footprint (in
term of kilobytes or megabytes) to support AMQP network wire-level
protocol? I am asking this thinking of the possibi
+1
--
jaaron
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
On Aug 3, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this project, I am calling a vote
Coach,
If you don't view your question as related to the vote, would you mind
reposting it to a separate or an existing thread about Glasgow?
Maybe it's just my personal preference, but I like to keep vote threads to just
votes and critical questions that were missed in the prior discussion (w
+1
On 3 Aug 06, at 12:52 PM 3 Aug 06, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this project, I am calling
+1 (non binding) from me.
A question unrelated to voting: What is the possible (estimated) minimum
implementation footprint (in term of kilobytes or megabytes) to support
AMQP network wire-level protocol? I am asking this thinking of the
possibility of using AMQP protocol in mobile applications su
+1 (non-binding) from me.
Craig
On Aug 3, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this
+1 (non-binding) from me too
On 8/3/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 from me.
On 8/3/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
> for a
Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw
Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name
collision with the old Sun codename for their JavaBeans Activiation
Framework (see
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GlasgowProposal?action=diff&rev2=2&rev1=1).
I
+1 from me.
On 8/3/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this project, I am call
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this project, I am calling a vote. As
usual, the binding votes will be those case by Inc
That is acceptable, and very reasonable, thank you
Carl.
Brian McCallister wrote:
I'm quite happy to have it come to a vote, but I would like to see the
specification issue laid to rest before graduation :-)
-Brian
On Aug 2, 2006, at 10:26 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Brian,
As the Champion f
I'm quite happy to have it come to a vote, but I would like to see
the specification issue laid to rest before graduation :-)
-Brian
On Aug 2, 2006, at 10:26 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Brian,
As the Champion for this proposal, I'd like to move this on to a vote.
I just read all the related po
On 8/3/06, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been told that three contributors to the various Heraldry code
bases were accidentallly omitted from the Heraldlry proposal:
Kevin Turner: kevin at janrain.com
Dag Arneson: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Grant
On 8/3/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> ...BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor...
...We welcome you. There can never be enough mentors.
ok, so feel free to add my name to the list!
-Bertrand
-
36 matches
Mail list logo
