On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Dan Peterson wrote:
>
> [X] +1 Accept Wave for incubation
> [ ] +0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Reject for the following reason:
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additi
> [X] +1 Accept Wave for incubation
> [ ] +0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Reject for the following reason:
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.or
Hi everyone,
Please vote on the acceptance of Wave into the Apache incubator.
The proposal is available at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WaveProposal
(for your convenience, a snapshot is also copied below)
The earlier discussion thread can be found at:
http://apache.markmail.org/message/3ebt
I made an edit to the incubator site. What do you think of it?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
>> clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
>
> If you really feel that there needs to be a c
> Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
> clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
If you really feel that there needs to be a clarification, it should probably
go as a patch to the Apache site (specifically,
http://www.apache.org/licenses/), where it
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Ian Roughley wrote:
> I'd like to add to what Soren said: we've discussed whether we should include
> the protocol and the
> implementation of the protocol in the proposal. What we concluded, is that
> having everything
> together would be the simplest for the t
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Ian Roughley wrote:
> On 11/25/2010 07:35 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> So, I think there's an underlying issue here that hasn't been brought up yet.
> And from the many
> discussion with Dan, I think it's Google's fault :-)
I just want a leveled playing field.
On 11/25/2010 07:35 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> Simple review: the original email was sent by Dan Peterson from his
>> google.com address. I imagine that if Google had a problem with it,
>> then he wouldn't be working there tomorrow :-D ...
I'd like to add to what Soren said: we've discussed whether we should include
the protocol and the
implementation of the protocol in the proposal. What we concluded, is that
having everything
together would be the simplest for the time being... although I don't think
anyone in the discussion
ha
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Santiago Gala wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Dan Peterson wrote:
> (...)
>> To keep things moving, I'd like to go ahead and put this proposal to a vote
>> starting on Tuesday on the west coast of the US (roughly 24 hours from now).
>>
>
> I want to get
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Dan Peterson wrote:
(...)
> To keep things moving, I'd like to go ahead and put this proposal to a vote
> starting on Tuesday on the west coast of the US (roughly 24 hours from now).
>
I want to get some information about an issue that, like the
name/branding one,
11 matches
Mail list logo
