On 5/22/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[X ] +1 Accept the changes
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 07:52, Craig L Russell wrote:
> On May 22, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
> > OK, just so I understand. We have a Member who's not on the IPMC. He
> > or she agree to Mentor a candidate, but before the proposal is
> > tendered, the Member should first ask to be placed
Hi Ted,
On May 22, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
On 5/22/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At one point, we had people becoming members of the Incubator
PMC by
> virtue of being a Mentor or by virtue of a vote of the Incubator
PMC.
> Did that change? This language impl
On 5/22/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At one point, we had people becoming members of the Incubator PMC by
> virtue of being a Mentor or by virtue of a vote of the Incubator PMC.
> Did that change? This language implies that the Mentors must be
> pre-existing members of the Inc
Are there some Maven PMC members that could join the IPMC? Maven by
it's very nature seem to bring in a lot of projects so in the long
run I think it will be in your collective best interestes to get more
involved with the IPMC.
-dain
On May 15, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Tha
As a lurker on PRC, I've never seen an article sent for review. I
don't think its necessary. Paul
On 5/22/07, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mmm, it's still not completely clear. Is the phrase "However, the
Public Relations Committee MUST review any releases by affiliated
organizations
Mmm, it's still not completely clear. Is the phrase "However, the
Public Relations Committee MUST review any releases by affiliated
organizations or groups to ensure they comply with these branding
guidelines." referring to press release announcing the podling only,
or to all press releases? Since
Hi Ted,
On May 22, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
At one point, we had people becoming members of the Incubator PMC by
virtue of being a Mentor or by virtue of a vote of the Incubator PMC.
Did that change? This language implies that the Mentors must be
pre-existing members of the Incubato
I've updated this proposal to explicitly include the possibility of a
single Mentor. Since this change affects Policy, another vote is needed.
Please review the changes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
INCUBATOR-60 and vote to accept them. The JIRA issue has .html files
to review in
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-60?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Craig Russell updated INCUBATOR-60:
---
Attachment: incubator-60.patch
> Mentor policy is inconsistent across documentation
> -
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-60?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Craig Russell updated INCUBATOR-60:
---
Attachment: Incubation_Policy.html
Updated to provide for a single Mentor.
> Mentor policy
At one point, we had people becoming members of the Incubator PMC by
virtue of being a Mentor or by virtue of a vote of the Incubator PMC.
Did that change? This language implies that the Mentors must be
pre-existing members of the Incubator PMC.
Is there a reason why we are saying "chosen by the
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:50, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> I just read it and it seems to me that the technical article Xavier is
> trying to publish would not need to be passed to the PRC.
Better safe than sorry... ;o)
Cheers
Niclas
-
I'm pulling this vote in order to update the definition of Mentors
per Jim and Justin's request. I'm hoping that the change is ok with
everyone else.
I'll have another patch ready for a vote shortly.
Craig
On May 22, 2007, at 7:05 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
+1
On May 21, 2007, at 5:05 PM,
I tend to use the private list as the place to look for decisions and actions
taken of things that
are PMC concerns, so I tend to cc private in most cases.
Mvgr,
Martin
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> In the doc's for voting in a new PPMC member [1] it is stated that a
> message with the vote results
+1
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> I have uploaded a version of ServiceMix 3.1.1 in the standard repo
> for you to review. See
> http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/servicemix-311.html
> for the future download page and release notes (these are also included in
> the
> distribution). The distribution
+1
On 5/22/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
On May 21, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Would this be ok?
>
> Change
>
> Mentors are chosen by the Sponsor to actively monitor the podling,
> guide the podling in the Apache Way, and report its status to the
> Sponsor and
+1
On May 21, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Would this be ok?
Change
Mentors are chosen by the Sponsor to actively monitor the podling,
guide the podling in the Apache Way, and report its status to the
Sponsor and the Incubator PMC. All Mentors must be members of the
Incubato
+1 from me. This build looks much better than the earlier builds.
Dan
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 03:03, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> I have uploaded a version of ServiceMix 3.1.1 in the standard repo
> for you to review. See
> http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/servicemix-311.html
> for the futur
And here's my +1 too
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have uploaded a version of ServiceMix 3.1.1 in the standard repo
for you to review. See
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/servicemix-311.html
for the future download page and release notes (these are also
included in
the
distribution). The di
+1 from me? (or did i vote before :)
-- dims
On 5/21/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the listed issues have been solved for a few days now. Robert mentioned
being offline this week so could somebody else pick this up? We still need 2
IPMC votes for this release.
Thanks!
Matthi
+1 from me.
thanks,
dims
On 5/22/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 looks good to me
On 5/22/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have uploaded a version of ServiceMix 3.1.1 in the standard repo
> for you to review. See
> http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/servi
+1 looks good to me
On 5/22/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have uploaded a version of ServiceMix 3.1.1 in the standard repo
for you to review. See
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/servicemix-311.html
for the future download page and release notes (these are also included
I just read it and it seems to me that the technical article Xavier is
trying to publish would not need to be passed to the PRC.
In my understanding this falls in the category of informal pr
activities, as long as the article is not intended as a press release
announcing the Podling.
But I alway
I'm pretty sure you already read it. But in case you don't, see
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
Gilles
> -Original Message-
> From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: mardi 22 mai 2007 14:28
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: to brand or not to
On 5/22/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 17:21, Xavier Hanin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently preparing an article on Ivy, and I'd like to know if
> it's better to talk about Apache Ivy, or simply Ivy. The rules about
> branding are still not clear for me, sorry
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 17:21, Xavier Hanin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently preparing an article on Ivy, and I'd like to know if
> it's better to talk about Apache Ivy, or simply Ivy. The rules about
> branding are still not clear for me, sorry if I missed an obvious
> link.
>
> So, any recommendatio
Yes, the advice is completely right.
Paul
On 5/22/07, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It makes sense, thanks!
Xavier
On 5/22/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I understand it, you need to call it Apache Ivy on first reference,
> and mention prominently that it is "curre
It makes sense, thanks!
Xavier
On 5/22/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I understand it, you need to call it Apache Ivy on first reference,
and mention prominently that it is "currently undergoing incubation at
the Apache Software Foundation" (or something like that).
- Brett
On
As I understand it, you need to call it Apache Ivy on first reference,
and mention prominently that it is "currently undergoing incubation at
the Apache Software Foundation" (or something like that).
- Brett
On 22/05/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/22/07, Xavier Hanin <[
On 5/22/07, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...I'm currently preparing an article on Ivy, and I'd like to know if
it's better to talk about Apache Ivy, or simply Ivy. The rules about
branding are still not clear for me, sorry if I missed an obvious
link
IMHO it'd be good to say "Ap
Hi,
I'm currently preparing an article on Ivy, and I'd like to know if
it's better to talk about Apache Ivy, or simply Ivy. The rules about
branding are still not clear for me, sorry if I missed an obvious
link.
So, any recommendation or link?
Xavier
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultan
I have uploaded a version of ServiceMix 3.1.1 in the standard repo
for you to review. See
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/servicemix-311.html
for the future download page and release notes (these are also included in
the
distribution). The distribution have been uploaded to
http://people.
33 matches
Mail list logo
