On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 14:25 +1000, Gavin wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, 25 April 2009 12:54 AM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Getting Log4PHP going again.
> >
> > If we already have your iCLA, I
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 25 April 2009 12:54 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Getting Log4PHP going again.
>
> If we already have your iCLA, I will add you post-haste!
>
> I *wish* some threads were dying
On Apr 24, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Malcolm Edgar wrote:
Ok thanks everyone for the feedback eveyone. I acknowledge the
importance of growing the committer community, which is something we
have not focused on, rather we have been looking at all the other nuts
and bolts incubation issues.
I can see thi
Ok thanks everyone for the feedback eveyone. I acknowledge the
importance of growing the committer community, which is something we
have not focused on, rather we have been looking at all the other nuts
and bolts incubation issues.
I can see this is very important for ensuring a sustainable Apache
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> 3 is the minimal number that is needed for a formal acceptance. So I see no
> problem with it. Click has been a successful open source project done the
> Apache way before entering Apache, so I think it is definitely ready to
> graduate now
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Andrus Adamchik
wrote:
> 3 is the minimal number that is needed for a formal acceptance. So I see no
> problem with it. Click has been a successful open source project done the
> Apache way before entering Apache, so I think it is definitely ready to
> graduate no
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 12:39 -0700, Will Glass-Husain wrote:
> I'd certainly be up for staying on Click's PMC and participating in
> governance issues, if that was helpful. I'm just not a user so have
> not done any contributions. (I'm certainly up for downloading code,
> testing, and voting on re
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Jeremias Maerki
wrote:
> On 18.04.2009 22:03:53 Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> Hi, Craig,
>>
>> I'm personally not sure that commons would be the best fit for
>> Sanselan. Despite the name, I'd consider the commons of xmlgraphics
>> (despite the name, this is not only
I'd certainly be up for staying on Click's PMC and participating in
governance issues, if that was helpful. I'm just not a user so have
not done any contributions. (I'm certainly up for downloading code,
testing, and voting on releases).
WILL
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 07:46 -0700, Will Glass-Husain wrote:
> Hi--
>
> I went away from email for half a day and got a ton of new messages!
>
> As a mentor to Click, I can attest that there's a small but active
> community involved. It's consistently operated in a transparent and
> open manner.
If we already have your iCLA, I will add you post-haste!
I *wish* some threads were dying down :)
On Apr 23, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Just want to confirm my interest in response.
My apache id is "grobmeier" - feel free to add me to the log4php
project :-)
Cheers
Christi
Hi--
I went away from email for half a day and got a ton of new messages!
As a mentor to Click, I can attest that there's a small but active
community involved. It's consistently operated in a transparent and
open manner. There's been no signs of "dictatator for life" behavior.
The founder of
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> As you may have noticed, a proposal for a new incubating project,
> tentatively called Apache Chemistry, is currently being prepared.
The proposal (http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChemistryProposal) is
pretty much complete now, and th
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> ...the project is fine, but should
> take a break with graduation to reevaluate its ranks and recruit willing and
> deserving individuals, and come back here maybe in 2-3 months if this
> endeavor is successful
sounds like a plan, +1 t
/me needs coffee. GAWT
Anyway, I'm refraining from commenting anymore.
Martijn
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> Taking this offline.
>
> I take personal offense to this characterization of my concerns. As an
> IPMC member, and Mentor I have enough merit to ask question
Taking this offline.
I take personal offense to this characterization of my concerns. As an
IPMC member, and Mentor I have enough merit to ask questions and to
expect normal answers instead of being discounted a priori.
You haven't taken any effort to answer my questions, yet immediately
put me i
On Apr 24, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Does any of the Mentors have any stake (user, contributor, whatever)
in the project? Preferably depending on the project on some commercial
project... ;-)
Can't speak for Henning and Will, but I am not tied to the project at
the moment, and
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> Being around for 4 years doesn't mean a community is healthy or
> sustainable. Showing growth and renewal does.
I am nowadays less demanding on "growth" but would like to see
"renewal" to a greater extent. A 11th hour, 59th minute alarm
On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:53 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Being around for 4 years doesn't mean a community is healthy or
sustainable. Showing growth and renewal does.
Discounting my concerns as artificial makes me not more appreciative
of accepting graduation at this time though.
That's fine.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> But adding 2 committers over the course of 4 years might suggest that
> there's a (B)DFL instead of a Meritocratic community.
I am sharing Martijn's concerns. 3 PMC members is a hard constraint
(the community is dead when it drops below
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Then there are different types of contributions. Some warrant a
> committership, others show that a given person should not be given SVN write
> access under no circumstances. Then there is a pace issue (which I think is
> at play here, and
Yeah, looks like I missed at least 3 more people. The immaturity
argument is really artificial here.
Andrus
On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Malcolm Edgar wrote:
There has been a fair turn over of comitters over the life of the
project. Previous committers have included:
* Phil Barnes,
* Ahmed M
On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Andrus Adamchik > wrote:
If you have proof otherwise, please share.
How about that in those four years, no new committers were admitted to
the project? A project with a scope and as successful as Click coul
There has been a fair turn over of comitters over the life of the
project. Previous committers have included:
* Phil Barnes,
* Ahmed Mohombe,
* Christian Essl,
* Stephen Haberman
Often these committers have used Click on commercial projects and have
become involved, then after a period of time the
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> If you have proof otherwise, please share.
How about that in those four years, no new committers were admitted to
the project? A project with a scope and as successful as Click could
easily have attracted 4-8 great committers over the cour
Now they are.
On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Andrus Adamchik > wrote:
Might, but it is simply not the case. You are making an abstract
argument.
As a mentor and the Incubator PMC member I am telling what I saw
over the
years watching t
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Might, but it is simply not the case. You are making an abstract argument.
> As a mentor and the Incubator PMC member I am telling what I saw over the
> years watching this specific project. If you have proof otherwise, please
> share.
+1
Vincent
2009/4/21 Dave :
> I think we've had ample time for feedback on this proposal.
>
> I'd like to call for a vote on Apache SocialsSite, to be sponsored by
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Dave wrote:
>> Greetings to all,
>>
>> It's my pleasure to p
On Apr 24, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Andrus Adamchik > wrote:
As I said already, the bigger point is valid: the opportunities to
expand
the committer/PMC base were missed, and this should be corrected
now if
possible. But let's not jump to s
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> As I said already, the bigger point is valid: the opportunities to expand
> the committer/PMC base were missed, and this should be corrected now if
> possible. But let's not jump to some strange conclusions from that. The
> project *is* mat
On Apr 24, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Failing to show that a project knows how to do this doesn't show
maturity.
As I said already, the bigger point is valid: the opportunities to
expand the committer/PMC base were missed, and this should be
corrected now if possible. But
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Andrus Adamchik
wrote:
> Hmm.. 3 PMC members was always ok. Did it change recently?
But going from 4 committer to 3 during incubation, and not voting in
new committers hasn't been ok. Having just 3 PMC members will stifle
the project: when one PMC member is on va
Hmm.. 3 PMC members was always ok. Did it change recently?
I agree on a tangential point though (and accept some blame myself as
a mentor) that the project should've done more active recruiting of
committers with the potential to join the PMC. In fact there seem to
be good candidates, and t
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> Comparing the original proposal to the graduation resolution it seems
> that click entered incubation with 4 committers and proposes to leave
> with 3.
>
> IMO a PMC of three is not enough - one person disappears and you can't
> get the th
Personally I think don't think there is a question of the projects
viability. The project started on SourceForge back in 2003 and 27,452
downloads. The current committers have been involved in the project
for many years, and include the projects initial lead.
The project has also had a strong ass
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Dave wrote:
>...
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SocialSiteProposal
>
> I look forward to your comments and suggestions on this proposal.
+1 to incubating (although this is not a vote yet ;-)
-Bertrand
+1
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Ropu wrote:
> +1
> We are working a lot around the project and we'd like to contribute to it.
>
> As a Shindig contributor, i'd love to see the same synergy applied to
> SocialSite.
>
> ropu
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Otis Gospodnetic <
> otis_gospod
ant elder wrote:
It does look at little odd to enter incubation with 4 committers and
leave with only 3 on the PMC but still the original 4 are all active
enough to have just voted for graduation on the click dev list.
Ahmed did not vote in that thread and we have not heard from him since
we
+1
We are working a lot around the project and we'd like to contribute to it.
As a Shindig contributor, i'd love to see the same synergy applied to
SocialSite.
ropu
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Otis Gospodnetic <
otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Another +1 from me, too. SocialSite ne
39 matches
Mail list logo
