On 10/2/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been holding onto posts with good fodder for the incubator site,
but haven't had time to incorporate them yet.
I'll be at the hackathon on Tuesday Oct 10. Is anyone else up for a
docathon? (Or did I miss a post already suggesting one?
I've been holding onto posts with good fodder for the incubator site,
but haven't had time to incorporate them yet.
I'll be at the hackathon on Tuesday Oct 10. Is anyone else up for a
docathon? (Or did I miss a post already suggesting one? *chagrin*)
-jean
--
This looks good to me. +1
-jean
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I just posted the new release snapshots here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.1/
>
> The changes from the first attempt are:
>
> * Added license headers to the .dtd and .css files in the documentation.
> * Added lic
I hope I get this part of process correct.
a reference to the results of the vote (so as to provide an audit
trail for the records)
Vote Tally:
3 binding votes (all +1)
5 non binding votes (all +1)
a reference to the Candidate's proposal can be found here: http://
wiki.apache.org/incubator
I have re-rolled the Woden 1.0.0 Milestone 6 release based on the feedback
from the Incubator PMC.
The jar files now have LICENSE and NOTICE files in their meta-inf
directories.
The release now includes a source code distribution as well as a binary
distribution.
The archive files names now begin
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
> Mentors are only there to help the project govern itself and, in
> some cases, be counted as one of the people on the PPMC.
>
++1. And I certainly
+1
On 2 Oct 2006, at 22:02, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
-1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors
are the
least capable of selecting a PPMC.
I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
You mean it isn't alwa
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
-1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors are
the
least capable of selecting a PPMC.
I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
You mean it isn't always true. I agree. In general, however, it is
almost
On Oct 2, 2006, at 2:19 PM, James Margaris wrote:
The project was approved with a certain committer list. What more
can be
said? The project was approved, the committer list was part of the
project proposal, hence everyone on the list should be committers. It
could not be more straightforwa
It is useful information and thanks for it. I was simply trying to
point out that there are other ways of managing an open source
project and probably no one right way of doing things.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 18:44, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This discussion is way out of hand. It has become totally unclear what
is even under discussion any more.
The project was approved with a certain committer list. What more can be
said? The project was approved, the committer list was part of the
project proposal, hence everyone on the list should
No, let's be clear, this discussion is all about how someone knows the
right thing to do, which is very hard when the rules keep changing.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett
Rooney
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 12:58 PM
To: ge
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I was thinking I was living in a world with defined procedures for
submitting a project with a list of initial committers, getting the
project approved, and then arranging to have the committers on the list
participate in the project.
+1
I really think we need to stick with the originally agreed project
proposal here or we will continue to end up in fruitless discussions.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Mark Little [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 12:07 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subj
Dan,
Ok, so you are now going to work with Mark and Kevin to help them
understand how to participate in the project as initial committers?
Thanks,
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:31 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Polic
Well, I was thinking I was living in a world with defined procedures for
submitting a project with a list of initial committers, getting the
project approved, and then arranging to have the committers on the list
participate in the project.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Mark Little wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only be
done) with committer rights.
That's not how the ASF works or has ever worked.
Right,
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like I said before: "Without wanting to open up flames about what
constitutes a true "open" source project." Your statements are
subjective.
I said nothing about what constitutes a "true" open source project,
simply about what constitutes a suc
I understand that (now). Different approaches to the same problem.
Variety is good. However, where we have issue is in the definition of
"earning" I suppose: being on the initial committers list when the
proposal was formed was supposed to be good enough. Turns out it
wasn't. It only took 2
Like I said before: "Without wanting to open up flames about what
constitutes a true "open" source project." Your statements are
subjective.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 17:57, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to no
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Mark Little wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights.
That's not how the ASF works or has ever worked. It's for
this exact reason w
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights.
If that was the impression people were under, then they should break
themselves
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights. Even if that wasn't the case, the
interactions weren't "when's my commit coming" but "we're really
anxious to get involved" an
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
"open" source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there
On 2 Oct 2006, at 16:31, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
How could they contribute when they were not given access?
The same way any non-commiter contributor contributes to a project:
1) JIRA - creating JIRA items, submitting patches, etc... I ad
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
"open" source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there are others where the
communities thrive and g
On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> How could they contribute when they were not given access?
The same way any non-commiter contributor contributes to a project:
1) JIRA - creating JIRA items, submitting patches, etc... I admit, the CXF
JIRA was not setup to allow patch
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How could they contribute when they were not given access? These guys
have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Uhh, what kind of world are you living in where the on
As a general statement, it is difficult if not impossible to do the
right thing when the rules keep changing.
The only sensible thing at this point is to continue the CeltiXfire
project as originally proposed and accepted.
If there are any retrospective issues or problems let's get them on this
o
How could they contribute when they were not given access? These guys
have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
To: general@in
Let me see if I can summarize some of the issues as I see them...
Currently, new podlings come from one of three sources:
1) Closed source code (usually from and external company) that is useful and
thus would like to be made open source. (tuscany, yoko, etc...)
2) One (or more) open source co
+1 from me.
On 10/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
Apache ActiveMQ community has voted on and approved the 4.0.2 release
binary. The last time release candidate was up for vote, it was
rejected due to issues with
In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
Apache ActiveMQ community has voted on and approved the 4.0.2 release
binary. The last time release candidate was up for vote, it was
rejected due to issues with licence headers. Those have now been
resolved.
We would now like
The vote to publish Lokahi M01 Passes with 3 +1 binding votes:
Bill Rowe:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200609.mbox/%3c45
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Burrell Donkin:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200609.mbox/%3cf4
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yoav Shapi
+1
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:18 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPM
There are, as I see it, 2 issues being discussed:
1. Is the Initial PPMC the Initial list of
committers noted in the proposal. I think
we've all expressed views in one way or
another.
2. The CXF-specific issue: that the initial list of
committers was not only NOT t
On 10/1/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do too. And with the number of projects coming in with sizeable numbers of
committers these days, I wonder how long it will be before the committers
coming in this way will outnumber those whose committership is based on (ASF
earned) merit.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
That's not it. The issue is they have been barred access to a
project they
have only expressed interest in contributed to. They have not yet
contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no
communication on the
dev list, etc...)
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
where the
Incubator PMC could provide
On Oct 1, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/1/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
would however encourage only voting people in after they an
appropriate
level of committment and involvement with the project.
This creates a dividing line by omitting past contribu
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
I assume you're referring to this sentence:
"Initially, it is composed of the Podling's mentors and initial
committers."
I have also found some threads which indicate that all committers
should be added [1][2].
I am pretty philosophicall
On 1 Oct 06, at 6:38 PM 1 Oct 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing t
On Oct 1, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This is why I keep pushing back with the idea that we bootstrap in
a defined
manner:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This
On 2 Oct 2006, at 08:17, Leo Simons wrote:
At the formation of the project all members of the group were
asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the s
On 1 Oct 2006, at 21:16, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
where the
Incubator PMC could provide an
Hmpf.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 8:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
I would say this is pa
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
with the results. Don't like that answer? Then dissolve
On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our names
were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I
49 matches
Mail list logo
