On 15/08/2006, at 4:16 PM, Danny Angus wrote:
On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
chain either. if a member
can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
timezone, we should be OK with that t
On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
chain either. if a member
can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
timezone, we should be OK with that too.
not every member has to be able to participat
you can either acknowledge that some people prefer to use IRC
to communicate, and accept that while it isn't the best medium, or
the one
you would choose, it is the one that group prefers.
OR
you can try to stifle their choice, and force them to use something
which
isn't natural to them (i
Well, what can I say other that there seem to be different opinions on
the issue. Maybe those different opinions can be summarized like this:
a) IRC is harmful for open development
b) IRC is not harmful for open development per se and can in fact be a
useful additional communication channel *if*
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>> Why? I think we are talking about two very different community dynamics.
>
> For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
> from people willing and able to r
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Bob,
>
> What is your concern? Can you please try to be simple and specific about
> it?
>
> For example, what if we created [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Forget
> the question of "how many podlings" --- I am simply talking about a list
> related to specif
Bob,
What is your concern? Can you please try to be simple and specific about
it?
For example, what if we created [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forget
the question of "how many podlings" --- I am simply talking about a list
related to specification work, and a list related to implemen
Lots of activity in the past month:
- Discussion of Celtixfire, Wicket, Qpid, and other proposed projects.
- Discussion of how to allow the use of Maven without co-mingling of
Incubator artifacts with other Apache artifacts. Henri is in the
process of setting up a separate repository
On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Granqvist, Hans wrote:
...
I would be in favor of such an approach. Honestly, I would
vastly prefer to have Open Specifications managed under ASF
processes than under the JCP, OASIS, etc.
Yea, I think it could be a good idea.
I agree.
Just a few thoughts on t
+1
On 8/15/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 from me.
On 8/14/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > people.apache.org/repo/m1-incubating-repository
> > > people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository
> >
> >
+1 from me.
On 8/14/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > people.apache.org/repo/m1-incubating-repository
> > people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository
>
> Noel, shall I go ahead and create the above? They get my +1 from a
> r
James Strachan wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > My particular use case involves selecting the next message in the
> > destination whose scheduled time is less than or equal to now. If there
> > were a "now" operation available in the query language, I wouldn't have
to
> > change the selector,
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> I could go add that to the website if that would help. We're not a
> legalistic community where exploiting loopholes or lack of written law
> is encouraged...
Sorry, it was meant as a simple question. It's extremely hard for
a newcomer like me to distinguish between pe
On 8/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> people.apache.org/repo/m1-incubating-repository
> people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository
Noel, shall I go ahead and create the above? They get my +1 from a
repository@ point of view.
Pinging on this to make sure the Incubator is h
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
>> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
>> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
>
> Is it written somewhere that ASF project names must mean "ownership
Whoops. This is an artifact of switching my trunk image over to branch.
I'll pull those jars out.
- James
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 8/14/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 8/14/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Ok, so we've addressed most of the issues raised
On 8/14/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/14/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so we've addressed most of the issues raised in the note below and
> believe we are ready to move forward with 0.1.0. The new zips are
> available at http://people.apache.org/~jmsnell
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>
> Why? I think we are talking about two very different community dynamics.
For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
from people willing and able to run a broad-based standards proc
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
Is it written somewhere that ASF project names must mean "ownership of"
rather than merely "categor
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 12:41 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
>> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
>> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to
Craig L Russell wrote:
> This is an interesting turn. The Jini web site doesn't currently say
> anything like this. It talks about "the specification" and "the
> implementation" as separable pieces.
They are "separable", and I'm not suggesting that change. At the same
time, they have not been
I'd like to add my support to those who, far more eloquently than I
could have done, have explained why IRC cannot be an inclusive or
truly public forum for discussion.
I have always taken the view that email is an essential characteristic
of the way the ASF works, and it is precisely because it
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 21:42 +0300, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> However, I'm still confused at the need to bring in a separate spec
> project. The Jini proposal states the scope of the project to be the
> "implementation" of the specification, and that scope is still valid
> regardless of what happens wi
On 8/14/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, so we've addressed most of the issues raised in the note below and
believe we are ready to move forward with 0.1.0. The new zips are
available at http://people.apache.org/~jmsnell
+1 from me (binding)
-garrett
-
Hi,
On 8/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
"technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
"Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to have
"Apache Jini", it shouldn't be
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 12:41 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to have
> "Apache Jini", it should
On 8/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> Public IRC, free for anyone to join, at a channel that is 'officially'
> published/ promoted however, does.
No it doesn't.It's exclusionary in that email allows timezone
independent participation, and IMO,
If there are no more last comments on the name by COB, I will update the
proposal with
Qpid and we will use this for ASF resource setup.
Regards
Carl.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-
Hi,
Besides voicing a strong +1 to Jim and Geir's comments, I want to add one more:
30 users online at any given time - that our list traffic got more
focussed and thus more valuable for following/ accessing the archives.
Focus may be nice, but it's sometimes counter to innovation. In my
expe
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>> The community learns about each other in a shared, non-exclusionary
>> method. Private Email/IM/IRC does NOT foster that.
>
> Public IRC, free for anyone to join, at a channel that is 'officially'
> published/ promoted however, does.
No it doesn't.It's exclusiona
The community learns about each other in a shared, non-exclusionary
method. Private Email/IM/IRC does NOT foster that.
Public IRC, free for anyone to join, at a channel that is 'officially'
published/ promoted however, does. Like I stated earlier, I actually
believe that since we started suppor
Hi Bob,
On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Bob Scheifler wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
process for JINI.
Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one
for JINI
governance, and one for building the implementation
> ...
> I would be in favor of such an approach. Honestly, I would
> vastly prefer to have Open Specifications managed under ASF
> processes than under the JCP, OASIS, etc.
Yea, I think it could be a good idea.
Just a few thoughts on the process: How do you envision editorship
of the spec?
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/14/06, Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>> I'm not sure what "governance" you have in mind beyond the spec process,
>> but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
>>
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
>> process for JINI.
>>
>> Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
>> governance, and one for building the implementation and community around
>> th
Ok, so we've addressed most of the issues raised in the note below and
believe we are ready to move forward with 0.1.0. The new zips are
available at http://people.apache.org/~jmsnell
At your convenience, we'd appreciate it if y'all could review and weigh
in on the release. Thanks!
robert burrel
I am finding it somewhat unsettling that there is an increase
in the amount of off-list "development" being done (via IRC)
as well as a decreased awareness of WHY Email is the preferred
method.
Too many times I see things like "Oh, we discuss things on
IRC and then bring it back to the list" as i
Hi,
On 8/14/06, Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
I'm not sure what "governance" you have in mind beyond the spec process,
but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
an equivalent of the existing Jini comm
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
> process for JINI.
>
> Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
> governance, and one for building the implementation and community around
> the working code that has been
On 8/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> -> Is Apache in the business of writing and publishing specifications? <-
> As long as Apache is not in the business of also creating
> specifications, there will be by definition some separation
> between code and sp
On 8/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the thread titled "RE: [Proposal] Blaze", James Strachan wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Totally unrelated ... JMS has the ability to create a message filter,
but
> > one of the limitations is that the filter is a
41 matches
Mail list logo
