Hi,
On 10/4/06, J Aaron Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/2/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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*)
Count me in.
Me too.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
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?
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
podling and the Mentors.
this is not policy ATM
Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronimo incubation.
They do have binding votes on everything
*exce
On 10/1/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just posted the new release snapshots here:
http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.1/
+1
(cayenne-2.0.1-incubating/doc/api/cayenne/apache-javadoc.css i think was missed)
- robert
--
Hi,
I'll be glad to help with [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whoever makes this
change should also put my gmail address (see Sender header of this
message) on the moderator allow list, because GMail retains a Sender
header even if I change the From header, thereby confusing ezmlm.
Yoav
On 10/3/06, Noel J. B
Hi,
On 10/3/06, Jim Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* braintree
+1 !!
* braintree -- Sun's project code names for their Starter Kit
releases were stops on Boston's redline T line.
The last stop on the redline is "braintree"
and it
On 10/3/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/3/06, 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 e
On 10/3/06, 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?
On 10/3/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
>> PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
>> mailing list. Ment
Ok, fair enough - ;-)
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:28 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
> Once again, no piling on.
Opinions appear to differ, although I
> Once again, no piling on.
Opinions appear to differ, although I'll accept that "a lot of" was
incorrect.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
decisions on behal
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Putting the process of Committership into the hands of the people managing
> the project is the best solution to both.
-1. Putting initial committership, in the hands of the proposer and
people they accept on educated trust is the right answer, along with
the mentors.
Cool.
and Ken's makes 5 binding votes.
On 03/10/2006, at 10:18 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
I didn't specify as such with my vote, but I believe my +1 was
binding as well.
Erik
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 03/10/2006, at 7:32 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Oct 0
First off... a *huge* thanks to all the creative minds in the Jini
Community
and Apache incubator for coming up with over 100 proposed names.
I'm sorry if your name doesn't appear on the final list, we had to
narrow
it (through TM vetting, etc.).
We have settled on a final list of 12 option
All,
Just to pose an outsider view, being new to the ASF and not to hijack
the discussion on the CFX/CeltiXFire, I would like to share my views
on the policy of the incubator.
From the documents I have read on the policy for entering, being
inside and graduating from the incubator there is a l
I don't understand this entire discussion. If there is "piling on" then
vote against the proposal. Is there something I am missing? Isn't it
that simple?
How do you prevent "piling on"?
1: Vote against a proposal that has been piled on to.
2: Make it easy to revoke committer status for people no
Any volunteers for general@incubator.apache.org and/or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (for this, only PMC members are eligible)?
Just one or two would be nice.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comm
Once again, no piling on.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:47 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from
>What we saw with CeltiXFire was a piling on of a lot of people who
wanted >to be on the initial contributors list --- voted in by virtue of
having >self-signed up --- and whom had never contributed anything to
the project.
FWIW that isn't correct. The individuals on the list had either
contribut
I think there is still a lot of misunderstanding here. I think Bill's
suggestion is a good one, and perhaps we should do it for CeltiXfire
anyway.
I do not think there has been any piling on. We reviewed each name on
the list carefully and a name only went on the list if we were convinced
that t
Sounds interesting.
Does this still include the hardware portability layer? Any synergies with
APR? Does it include the AWT code?
--- Noel
-Original Message-
From: Chris Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 5:09
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
The Yoko community voted on and has approved a proposal to release Yoko
Milestone 1. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
Policy we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC
to publish the milestone on the Yoko Download page.
Please vote by 6 PM EST Thursday, 10/
I won't be in the AC, unfortunately. Yesterday I was discussing with
some people about using CAT in OS projects, and tools like omegat, and
specially formats like TMX came to mind.
One of the problems with manuals is that translating them (as an
ongoing, changing work) becomes a lot of effort. If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
(also binding. and late.)
- --
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-BEGIN PGP
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
> PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
> mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
Eric Newcomer:
> 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.
Actually, no. There is relatively little (some, not much) debate on what is
the right thing to do. The real discussion is on HOW to do th
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> commit privs have always been a relatively high bar for people to
> meet
Although we've often suggested a relatively low barrier to entry for
projects in the Incubation. Low != none.
As for who should be a Committer, who better to decide than the active
community for whic
Mark Little wrote:
> Sure, but isn't that the process for if you join AFTER the project
> has started? If you're on the list of initial supporters/committers
> then it's a different policy I believe. It's certainly not the
> approach we were lead to believe when we were approach by IONA to
> suppo
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> I agree with Roy's approach -- let the podling deal with the
> committer issue during incubation.
Uh ... everyone is saying that we should let the podling deal with the
Committer issue during Incubation. We're only dickering over how. :-)
--- Noel
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 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
> -1 from Jim.
> I t
Berin Lautenback wrote:
> 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.
Leo Simons wrote:
> 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:
> 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 als
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
> > then stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in
> > a manner you find offensive.
> >
> > Why would the PMC not elect "the people who contribu
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access
> to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on
> the verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for
> communities (like Wicket) where people have earne
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural
for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's at least get CXF off to a good start!
Or kill it now and let the proposers compile a list o
Newcomer, Eric wrote:
>
> A couple of things stand out to me from this: it is important to follow
> the process and treat approval of a proposal in terms of the agreement
> it represents (and carry it out accordingly) and that as Roy said
> although it may take some time in the end the right thing
+1 (non-binding)...
-Matthias
On 9/28/06, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1..
Mvgr,
Martin
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> The Trinidad community voted on and approved to release the the maven2
> plugins as a milestone1 release. These plugins are required for the maven2
> build o
Hi Andrus,
+1 for release.
I can now see your key, and can verify the signature on the release
artifact (for MacOSX).
Thanks,
Craig
On Oct 3, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
I can swear I did it before, but I posted it again a few minutes
ago. Seems to be there now:
http://pg
I can swear I did it before, but I posted it again a few minutes ago.
Seems to be there now:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Andrus+Adamchik&op=index
Andrus
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Andrus,
Congratulations on your release candidate.
I was unable t
Hi Andrus,
Congratulations on your release candidate.
I was unable to retrieve your key B8AF90BF from the public key server
pgp.mit.edu, which you used to sign the release. Have you had your
key signed and uploaded it to a public server?
Craig
On Sep 30, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Andrus Adamchik
Dan -
As you have no doubt seen by now the issue is not how to contribute to
an open source project, since as you said there are indeed many ways to
accomplish that.
The issue is whether or not to carry out the agreement implicit in the
approval of a project, including the list of initial commi
Hi,
It seems like there's clear consensus now around this question of the
initial committers list. Thanks to everyone for joining the debate.
A couple of things stand out to me from this: it is important to follow
the process and treat approval of a proposal in terms of the agreement
it repres
The Yoko community voted on and has approved a proposal to release Yoko
Milestone 1. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
Policy we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC
to publish the milestone on the Yoko Download page.
Please vote by 6 PM EST Friday, 10/0
I didn't specify as such with my vote, but I believe my +1 was
binding as well.
Erik
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 03/10/2006, at 7:32 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:09:24PM +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
I hope I get this part of process correc
On 03/10/2006, at 7:32 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:09:24PM +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
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 vo
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:09:24PM +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
> 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)
>
Could you please
+1
-bd-
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:41 PM, 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 license head
49 matches
Mail list logo
