> and only the PPMC member votes are binding.
The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member votes
are binding.
--- Noel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Jan 29, 2008 2:44 AM, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry I didn't post in response to your original mail - I was in the
> middle of a laptop failure (now recovered with no harm done).
>
> I'm certainly in favour of this as a project. My main concern is that it
> is already relatively
+1
I scanned the RAT output, eyeballed the license and notice files, and
cracked open some of the binaries. All looked good. Nice job.
--kevan
On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
Hi,
The previous VOTE thread here for SCA Java 1.1-incubating identified
some
issues.
http://w
On 30.01.2008, at 21:29, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
you probably have noticed a number of emailed audit reports (see
below). i've been doing some testing (apologies for the SPAM) but
think that everything's working ok now.
1. frequency: weekly? biweekly? monthly?
Maximum one per week I'd sa
Hi,
On Jan 30, 2008 10:29 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. web page: too concise? too verbose?
The repeating directory path in the " in " list items
could be avoided by grouping the list of files by directory.
Added
in /www/archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/cxf/2.0.4-i
Hi,
On Jan 30, 2008 10:29 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you probably have noticed a number of emailed audit reports (see
> below). i've been doing some testing (apologies for the SPAM) but
> think that everything's working ok now.
>
> 1. frequency: weekly? biweekly? monthl
Craig L Russell wrote:
I think it's confusing people to use the term "binding" in different
contexts. I'd like to propose that the term is only used to refer to
decisions/votes that are binding on The Apache Software Foundation,
which means decisions/votes made by a duly authorized PMC.
In pa
you probably have noticed a number of emailed audit reports (see
below). i've been doing some testing (apologies for the SPAM) but
think that everything's working ok now.
1. frequency: weekly? biweekly? monthly?
2. format: too long? too short?
3. web page: too concise? too verbose?
opinions appre
I think it's confusing people to use the term "binding" in different
contexts. I'd like to propose that the term is only used to refer to
decisions/votes that are binding on The Apache Software Foundation,
which means decisions/votes made by a duly authorized PMC.
In particular, the followi
Perhaps in the interest of code audit (which needs to be done) and community
building, the code parts of the missing committers should be removed from
the code drop prior to incubation start, and be re-introduced inside the
incubating podling by providing patches through bugzilla?
Martijn
On 1/30/
If there are people who have already proven their *merit* on the
project that are not included on the initial list of committers then I
think they should be.
> In reality, many parts of the Thrift code base are already entirely
> owned by non-Facebook entities. The Cocoa, C#, Perl, and Smallt
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 11:50 -0500, Ben Maurer wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Upayavira wrote:
> > As you can see from other proposals, I think you'll find it work better
> > with a single committer pool. As others have said, I personally have
> > never seen a problem with this approach - people ste
Yoav Shapira wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 2:24 AM, Mark Slee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What we'd really
like to set up here is a system where there are different people with
committer priveleges to different parts of the project.
I'm not a huge fan of this, but I love the rest of the proposal, so +
The CXF build fails several tests.
Environment:
Maven version: 2.0.8
Java version: 1.5.0_13
OS name: "windows xp" version: "5.1" arch: "x86" Family: "windows"
Log file:
http://people.apache.org/~sebb/CXF
On 30/01/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are several problems with the NOTIC
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Upayavira wrote:
As you can see from other proposals, I think you'll find it work better
with a single committer pool. As others have said, I personally have
never seen a problem with this approach - people steer away from code
that they are unfamiliar with, or tend to ask pe
On Jan 30, 2008, at 4:45 PM, J Aaron Farr wrote:
"Mark Slee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anyone have feedback? If no objections are voiced, when would it be
appropriate for us to move forward with a VOTE thread on this?
Sorry for not responding. I flagged the email when I first saw it but
did
"Mark Slee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone have feedback? If no objections are voiced, when would it be
> appropriate for us to move forward with a VOTE thread on this?
Sorry for not responding. I flagged the email when I first saw it but
didn't have time to respond.
Overall the proposal
There are several problems with the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
The NOTICE file should only pertain to artefacts actually included in
distribution; it should not have any details of transitive
dependencies. So the "/uses" text should be removed.
The line
This product includes/uses software(s) deve
On Jan 30, 2008 2:24 AM, Mark Slee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What we'd really
> like to set up here is a system where there are different people with
> committer priveleges to different parts of the project.
I'm not a huge fan of this, but I love the rest of the proposal, so +1
to it! I'm also
On Jan 30, 2008 7:24 AM, Mark Slee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> *If I look at the initial committers list, I see a big portion to be
> facebook developers. During incubation you should work on diversifying.*
>
> *Again, it seems like a huge contingent of facebook developers. You
> re
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 19:30, Erik Abele wrote:
> In the end they are here to learn The A Way and if it turns out to be
> a problem then they won't be able to graduate so I think it's
> premature to turn down the proposal just because of this.
Correct, but putting it in place increases t
On 30.01.2008, at 10:35, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 15:24, Mark Slee wrote:
What we'd really
like to set up here is a system where there are different people with
committer priveleges to different parts of the project.
Hmmm... I would oppose this for two reasons;
1.
The policy page says:
"Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the
Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list. At least three
+1 votes are required (see the Apache Voting Process page), and only the
PPMC member votes are binding. If the majority of all v
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 23:24 -0800, Mark Slee wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> *If I look at the initial committers list, I see a big portion to be
> facebook developers. During incubation you should work on diversifying.*
>
> *Again, it seems like a huge contingent of facebook developers. You
> really sh
Niclas
I also had exactly the same thoughts on reading the email. I think
learning that committership is a position of trust is a key part of
the incubation process.
So I'm +1 on the proposal, but I would definitely be -1 on graduation
if such a scheme were to be implemented during incubation.
P
Niclas Hedhman schrieb:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 15:24, Mark Slee wrote:
>
>> What we'd really
>> like to set up here is a system where there are different people with
>> committer priveleges to different parts of the project.
>>
>
> Hmmm... I would oppose this for two reasons;
>
> 1
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 15:24, Mark Slee wrote:
> What we'd really
> like to set up here is a system where there are different people with
> committer priveleges to different parts of the project.
Hmmm... I would oppose this for two reasons;
1. Creating boundaries within a project, yet coll
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 01:42, Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> I did what I think is appropriate, but I think there would be a need for
> further review by someone else. Some cases that I'm sure might need
> extra attention would be:
> 1. I'm using GPL javascript html-editor (Tiny MCE). As far as I can
Hi,
On Jan 29, 2008 11:20 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be happy to be a mentor for PDFBox - not done mentoring before
> so if you can get someone more experienced then I'll bow out no
> problem. Also I also haven't used PDFBox or even looked at it, but I
> am interested
29 matches
Mail list logo
