On 08/16/2010 09:32 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> I've already decided that I'm going to have to recruit a number of key
>> mentors to help me protect the project during incubation.
> Historically, I think there are two classes of podlings:
Sorry if I'm late to the party, but my 2 cents...
The more I read about this, the more I latch onto Justin's "Observers" notion.
As a non-Apache Member, non-IPMC, PPMC member for OODT, I feel like I am
qualified to vote on a release in the sense that I am closer to the code than
Justin (sorry t
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Gav... wrote:
> have something to say about it. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned about the
> Incubator PMC Chair
> up until now (actually I'm not, and I bet that no one steps up to agree with
> me here, I expect
> to be alone in my opinion.)
I agree with you.
I
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> You know when to vote and *how* to vote. I see no reason to deny your vote.
Of course. It's always seemed awkward if you can't contribute
technically to suddenly have a binding vote. I'm sure if I *wanted*
to learn how to build something wit
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> So basically you are moving more towards Joe's proposal, that the PPMC would
> have the binding VOTEs in e.g., new committers/PMC members, and on releases?
> Of course, with the caveats below, as you mention, i.e., the observers c
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hey Justin,
>
> Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. My comments below:
>
>> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
>> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases. I've
>> known yo
Hey Justin,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. My comments below:
>
> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases. I've
> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
> the OODT
[ CCing gene...@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
context in for those on gene...@incubator ]
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, C
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I've already decided that I'm going to have to recruit a number of key
> mentors to help me protect the project during incubation.
Historically, I think there are two classes of podlings:
- one which has a self-governing community and just n
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
>> I suspect the OODT guys might want to try this (it has four ASF
>> Members as Mentors who could comprise the PMC). Subversion would have
>> done this, based on my own thoughts/experiences and knowledge of what
>> the
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:53, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It's optimized for success while making mentors potentially responsible for
> failure (iow a project with crappy mentors will fail no matter how much they
> grok apache).
Fair assessment, but those *are* the projects that I'm looking at.
Thos
Greg Stein wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Make the podling a TLP comprised of *only* ASF Members, with at least
>>> *three* minimum (preferably more, to deal with idle times).
>> How does that differ from the current system (given the assumption of 3+
PMC
>> Members), exc
It's optimized for success while making mentors potentially responsible for
failure (iow a project with crappy mentors will fail no matter how much they
grok apache). Still have doubts about escalating the graduation decision to
the board.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Gre
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Your head is in the sand. The Incubator is a broken process. Everybody
> hates it. Everybody wants to get out of it. Subversion was fortunate
> in that we had enough support to bully our way through, to route
> around damage, and to check everyt
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:31, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Noel J. Bergman
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 10:00:40 PM
>> Subject: RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)
>>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> > Using this model decentral
Hey Guys,
> I suspect the OODT guys might want to try this (it has four ASF
> Members as Mentors who could comprise the PMC). Subversion would have
> done this, based on my own thoughts/experiences and knowledge of what
> the ASF needs/wants.
+1 from me with my OODT hat on.
Also, I like Greg's p
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:29, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> > I read that thread, and as I commented on private@, I thought that it could
>> > have been handled better.
>
>> I certainly could have handled it better.
>
> I didn't mean by YOU. See my reply on private@ before jump
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:07, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 17/08/2010 03:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very well
>> in
>> specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an
>> experiment,
>> if the Board buys into it. Do
- Original Message
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 10:00:40 PM
> Subject: RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > Using this model decentralizes the process
>
> So does having 3+ PMC Members today.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very
well in
> > specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an
experiment,
> > if the Board buys into it. Do we have any such projects pending or
already
> > in the
Greg Stein wrote:
> > I read that thread, and as I commented on private@, I thought that it
could
> > have been handled better.
> I certainly could have handled it better.
I didn't mean by YOU. See my reply on private@ before jumping to that
conclusion.
> But that thread is *indicative* of the
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> Make the podling a TLP comprised of *only* ASF Members, with at least
>> *three* minimum (preferably more, to deal with idle times). The
>> podling committers are invited onto the priv...@$podling.apache.org
>> maili
Gavin wrote:
> > Actually, I read Incubator e-mail pretty much every day.
> Then why do you store up all your replies until report time? It makes no
> sense.
I don't. I just haven't had much to say lately, although I did post earlier
about Zeta and NPanday. And, as you know, I was away last wee
On 17/08/2010 03:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very well in
specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an experiment,
if the Board buys into it. Do we have any such projects pending or already
in the Incubator?
I'
Greg Stein wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > I view this as potentially the crux of the problem - people who aren't
> > stakeholders in the community shouldn't have a say. Right now, they
> > feel they do. So, if we want to mandate at least 3 mentors - fine,
> > but that must come at the cos
On 08/16/2010 07:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
That is not the message that we get from most participants, but if that is
the case, then let's fix it.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the main problem we (ATS) had was to
get enough binding votes. Even from the IPMC we failed one release
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 21:30, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> but the busy-bodies and rules pedants got all in our face.
>
> I read that thread, and as I commented on private@, I thought that it could
> have been handled better.
I certainly could have handled it better. But th
Greg Stein wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > <> There are other instances of such things, such as httpd-docs
> > (IIUC), and I don't see a problem with it where a project feels it makes
> > sense.
> Our project thought it did make sense
Fine, and I'd agree with you.
> but the busy-bodies and
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 21:21, Gav... wrote:
>...
> another example, you just posted a whole months worth at members requesting
> to join the Incubator PMC and Greg just acked the lot -- is this something
> that only you as Incubator PMC chair can do or can any member send off this
> ack request t
On 17/08/2010 02:05, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 16:47, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
Your head is in the sand. The Incubator is a broken process. Everybody
hates it. Everybody wants to get out of it. Subversion was fortunate
in that we had enough support to bully our way through,
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:n...@devtech.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2010 9:13 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: an experiment
>
> Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
> > How about a PMC Chair that does more than turn up once a month at ,
> ooh,
> day
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 16:47, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the issue involved the notion of "partial committers" in subversion
>> There were objections over the notion of "partial committers", not about
> the individual.
>
> <> There are other instances of such things,
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 13:57, Benson Margulies wrote:
>...
> On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for.
> Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent
> email at members@ that there was much more flexibility possible with
> committer status th
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 19:12, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
>> How about a PMC Chair that does more than turn up once a month at , ooh,
> day
>> before board reports are due and then disappears for a whole month until ,
>> ooh, day before report time.
>
> Actually, I read Incub
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:45, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> And if the Mentors aren't being active, voting, etc., then *that* is what
>> needs to be addressed.
>
> As I've repeatedly stated before (here and elsewhere), in the podlings
> I'v
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our
project
> > from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and
to
> > cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing
something
> > like this?
> LCF is not a s
Gavin McDonald wrote:
> How about a PMC Chair that does more than turn up once a month at , ooh,
day
> before board reports are due and then disappears for a whole month until ,
> ooh, day before report time.
Actually, I read Incubator e-mail pretty much every day.
> And you still expect to run
The relevance of this name might seem clear to project members, but not to me.
From my background I would assume this is an implementation of the j2ca
connector framework at apache, kind of like (the active part of) codehaus
tranql. If I'd been working on tomcat or jetty recently I'd assume it
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:59 AM,
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our project
> from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and to
> cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing something
> like th
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:n...@devtech.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2010 4:07 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: an experiment
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > Your reading of the corporate structure of this org is needlessly
> formal.
>
Sorry for the lateness, as one of the Amber mentors I would like to sign off on
the amber portion of this report.
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Matt Benson, Srinath Perera, and Michael McCandless all joined the
> Incubator. Several more will be join
Kevan Miller wrote:
> IIRC, the issue involved the notion of "partial committers" in subversion
> There were objections over the notion of "partial committers", not about
the individual.
<> There are other instances of such things, such as httpd-docs
(IIUC), and I don't see a problem with it wher
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Here's the current process for getting new committers into an incubating
project:
> 1. Identify candidates
> 2. Discuss candidates on podling-private
> 3. Agree that candidate should be a committer
All PPMC functions; need no outside involvement.
> 4. Vote on podling-pr
+1
Signature/checksums, build, source (RAT), and general snooping around with
emacs all looked good. Thanks Donald!
--kevan
On Aug 13, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> A Bean Validation 0.2-incubating release candidate #2 has been created
> with the following artifacts up for a vote:
>
On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Presumably there was no valid basis for the -1? Sucks, but Joe's proposal
> doesn't change the fact that any PMC Member can still vote on any project.
> The ASF does not have subprojects, there is only one PMC. We have gone
> through this wi
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM, sebb wrote:
> Also, just noticed that the SVN tree does not appear to have a copy of
> the LICENSE file.
> Normally this is stored alongside the NOTICE file at the top-level, i.e. in
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/trunk/
> Looks like the file wa
Hi Noel,
>> I guess that's what I take exception to, I think the PPMC _should_ have
>> standing.
>
> As per http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3, the defined
> governing entity is the Project Management Committee, better known as the
> PMC. And while the text does say that the PMC Ch
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:33 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 16 August 2010 19:18, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> Some of the incubation stages don't seem to have been completed, at
> least according to the page:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/shiro.html
> Perhaps these items have been completed, in which
Chris A Mattmann wrote:
> > Well, that's sufficient, Chris. There should be no "nice to have"
aspect.
> > The only requirement is that the PMC has the ability to oversee. If we
can
> > streamline that process, great.
> Yeah, I guess to me the PPMC mentors should be fine to oversee without
> dou
- Original Message
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> To: bo...@apache.org
> Cc: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 2:52:18 PM
> Subject: Incubator Board Report - August 2010
> On to a topic for the Board's attention. There has been some lively
> discussion this past wee
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> a quick recap.
> an Incubator PMC member who was never involved in [the] community jumped
in
> the middle of a committer vote to vote -1. Greg wrote a cranky email
telling
> him to go away. Most of the committers in SVN were taken aback by the
behavior.
> "Who is this
Matt Benson, Srinath Perera, and Michael McCandless all joined the
Incubator. Several more will be joining this week.
Shiro is set to graduate, and it seems that at least a couple of projects
are in good shape to graduate in the near future.
On to a topic for the Board's attention. There has be
i am not confused:-) the entire incubator is a 'walled sandbox'. if projects
can grant streamlined karma to sandbox branches to students, why not let
podlings add committers?
On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Monday 16 August 2010 2:15:32 pm Luciano Resende wrote:
>> On Mon,
On 16 August 2010 19:33, sebb wrote:
> On 16 August 2010 19:18, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>> The Apache Shiro community and the mentors of the project think the
>> project is ready to graduate and is asking for IPMC's recommendation
>> to present the project resolution to the board. The community
>>
Hi Noel,
Thanks for your reply. Comments below:
>> From my point of view, it would be nice for podlings with active mentors
>> to be able to guide their own decisions, especially if there are 3 active
>> mentors and they approve. For example in our case in OODT, we can achieve
>> consensus and ob
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> What happened?
It's all in the archives, but a quick recap.
For Subversion, an Incubator PMC member who was never involved in the
SVN community jumped in the middle of a committer vote to vote -1.
Greg wrote a cranky email telling him to
On 16 August 2010 19:18, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> The Apache Shiro community and the mentors of the project think the
> project is ready to graduate and is asking for IPMC's recommendation
> to present the project resolution to the board. The community
> graduation vote was held and resulted in 27
Good job guys. I reviewed the VOTE threads, and your clutch status. Board
resolution looks good. My only concern is that it looks like a small PMC, but
if you've got this far then I'll trust you guys to move forward. Also looks
like solid people on the team too.
+1 from me.
Cheers,
Chris
On
- Original Message
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 2:22:02 PM
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] experimental delegation of new committer votes to PPMC
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > I have come to the realization that I'm not going to convinc
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I'm challenging the idea that allowing subprojects to vote in new
committers all
> by themselves is somehow taboo in this org
I understand. I am specifically raising that issue with the Board in this
month's report.
> > Giving them commit access has been deemed an action r
On Monday 16 August 2010 2:15:32 pm Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Benson Margulies
>
> wrote:
> > On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for.
> > Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent
> > email at members@ th
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I have come to the realization that I'm not going to convince Noel
> to see things my way any time soon, so I'd like to now ask for a
> formal majority consensus vote on relaxed rules for [for] thrift,
> sis, and esme, I wish to remove the current rule that requires 3
> votes
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > But, seriously, if there is systemic overreaching, lets address *that*
> > issue.
> The cases of "overreaching" in Subversion and OODT related to adding
> new committers - not releases.
What happened? And given that Subversion clearly (should have) had more
than 3 P
Chris A Mattmann wrote:
> From my point of view, it would be nice for podlings with active mentors
> to be able to guide their own decisions, especially if there are 3 active
> mentors and they approve. For example in our case in OODT, we can achieve
> consensus and obtain much of the necessary VO
The Apache Shiro community and the mentors of the project think the
project is ready to graduate and is asking for IPMC's recommendation
to present the project resolution to the board. The community
graduation vote was held and resulted in 27 positive votes with no
neutral or negatives (see
http://
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for.
> Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent
> email at members@ that there was much more flexibility possible with
> committer status than
- Original Message
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 2:02:15 PM
> Subject: RE: an experiment
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Are you trying to tell me that both jakarta and httpd have been in
> violation
> > of Apache bylaws all thes
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Your reading of the corporate structure of this org is needlessly
formal.
> And sometimes the job description of a PMC Chair is
Sorry, got distracted by the phone, and didn't finish the thought.
Part of the job description of a PMC Chair is to look after the Foundatio
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Are you trying to tell me that both jakarta and httpd have been in
violation
> of Apache bylaws all these years?
As as matter of fact, YES.
I can't speak for the HTTP Server situation, but in the case of Jakarta,
that was one of the reasons for breaking it up, along with pu
There is some obvious compromises opportunity here. On releases, the iPMC
could decide, by internal convention, to let the involved three mentors
(when there are three involved members) be the relevant voice. iPMC members
could pledge to defer to the involved mentors unless they feel that there is
- Original Message
> From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 1:48:38 PM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] experimental delegation of new committer votes to PPMC
> (was
>Re: [VOTE] experimental delegation of new committer votes to PPMC)
>
(starting new DISCUSS thread, to not pollute VOTE thread)
Hi Joe,
Can you do the VOTE for all Incubating projects? I'm sure mentors would put
their own projects into the mix, so rather than just a few, let's do it for all
of them.
Cheers,
Chris
On 8/16/10 10:44 AM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
I
I have come to the realization that I'm not
going to convince Noel to see things my way
any time soon, so I'd like to now ask for a
formal majority consensus vote on relaxed rules
for the 3 aforementioned projects.
Specifically, for thrift, sis, and esme, I wish to
remove the current rule that req
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Where are you seeing this "over-reach" problem to which you refer? I have
> heard of a few isolated incidents, and those can be addressed. But by far
> and way, the biggest complaint is LACK of involvement, e.g.,
...
> And most cases of
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > We have one of the largest PMCs in the ASF.
> I view this as potentially the crux of the problem - people who aren't
> stakeholders in the community shouldn't have a say. Right now, they
> feel they do. So, if we want to mandate at least 3 mentors - fine,
> but that
Hi,
The "Lucene Connectors Framework" committers are voting to rename our project
from "Lucene Connectors Framework" to "Apache Connectors Framework", and to
cease being a subproject of Lucene. What is the process for doing something
like this?
Karl
Hi Guys,
>From my point of view, it would be nice for podlings with active mentors to be
>able to guide their own decisions, especially if there are 3 active mentors
>and they approve. For example in our case in OODT, we can achieve consensus
>and obtain much of the necessary VOTEs and oversigh
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Perhaps that's true for the projects you work on, but it certainly
> isn't true of Thrift, where mentorship has been a revolving door
> for years.
True. I've never been a big fan of requiring 3 mentors - as I think
certain personalities can
- Original Message
> From: Justin Erenkrantz
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 12:45:17 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > And if the Mentors aren't being active, voting, etc., then *that* is wh
- Original Message
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 12:18:39 PM
> Subject: RE: an experiment
>
> > I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational
> > and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in
> > her
On 08/16/2010 10:36 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Again, if the PPMC has 3 or more PMC members, it should be capable of
mustering the necessary votes by virtue of those PMC members voting.
Have I repeated the "every Incubator project should have at least 3 PMC
members providing oversight" mantra en
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> And if the Mentors aren't being active, voting, etc., then *that* is what
> needs to be addressed.
As I've repeatedly stated before (here and elsewhere), in the podlings
I've been recently involved with, having three mentors isn't the
issu
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > How about requiring at least one mentor on the vote, so there is still
> > some oversight?
> I'm actually not in favor of that idea because relatively few
> mentors are active developers in their projects (I'm certainly
> in that category). Part of what I'm trying to tea
> Again, if the PPMC has 3 or more PMC members, it should be capable of
> mustering the necessary votes by virtue of those PMC members voting.
> Have I repeated the "every Incubator project should have at least 3 PMC
> members providing oversight" mantra enough, yet?
And if the Mentors aren't bei
> I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational
> and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in
> here. What I want to do is to see how far I can push
> the envelope on the whole notion of empowerment and
> self-governance in an incubating project, following the
> less
Thanks Kevan!
On 8/16/10 7:39 AM, "Kevan Miller" wrote:
On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hey Noel,
>
> I uploaded an SIS report just now on the wiki. Any SIS mentors lurking
> around, please check it out and sign off. Thanks!
Done. Thanks Chris.
--kevan
On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hey Noel,
>
> I uploaded an SIS report just now on the wiki. Any SIS mentors lurking
> around, please check it out and sign off. Thanks!
Done. Thanks Chris.
--kevan
Actually, speaking of which too, Noel, since I'm on the Incubator PMC, please
add me as a mentor for SIS now too. I'll add myself as a mentor to the SIS
proposal on the wiki as well, but can someone please add me to the other
appropriate areas (or tell me how to do it myself)?
Also, FWIW, I add
Hey Noel,
I uploaded an SIS report just now on the wiki. Any SIS mentors lurking around,
please check it out and sign off. Thanks!
Cheers,
Chris
On 8/16/10 7:24 AM, "Noel J. Bergman" wrote:
I'm putting together the monthly board report. HISE and SIS are missing (so
is Bluesky, but they did
I'm putting together the monthly board report. HISE and SIS are missing (so
is Bluesky, but they did provide reports for the past several months
running, so I'll cut them some slack).
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Sorry for the lateness, but our BVAL report for August has been posted
to the Incubator wiki.
Apache Bean Validation will deliver an implementation of the JSR303 Bean
Validation 1.0 specification. BVAL entered incubation on March 1, 2010.
A list of the three most important issues to address in th
91 matches
Mail list logo
