On Wed, Jan 11, 2012, at 22:35, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Franklin, Matthew B.
> wrote:
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:nic...@hedhman.org]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:25 PM
> >>To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefe
On 1/11/2012 11:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 00:33, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> Now lets look at the remainder- several projects with no report whatsoever
>>
>> This has been an issue. Perhaps we need to put some teeth in the
>> requirement, such as
On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
>> -
>>
>> Any23
>>
> ...
>> Yes, all of the code has been ported from Google Code to the ASF.
>> Thanks to Daniel Shahaf and Michele Mostarda for leading the
>> charge here.
>
> To cla
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 01:09, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Below are podling reports. Sam Ruby has already reviewed the original list
> prior to posting, and requested that specific posts not be provided to the
> Board, as he was unhappy with their status:
>
> Kato: has been in limbo for years
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Franklin, Matthew B.
wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:nic...@hedhman.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:25 PM
>>To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
>>Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
>>
>>I like Joe
A number of substantive issues came up during the past month.
First, and although it was raised on the private list and therefore details
won't be part of the public report, we advise the Board that there is
substantial discussion regarding changing the Incubator VP, which has been
held for almost
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 00:33, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Now lets look at the remainder- several projects with no report whatsoever
>
> This has been an issue. Perhaps we need to put some teeth in the
> requirement, such as closing down commit access until reports are post
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Let's stop discussing this issue in the abstract
Good idea. Lets be more specific, and put together something actionable.
> Now lets look at the remainder- several projects with no report whatsoever
This has been an issue. Perhaps we need to put some teeth in the
require
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks,
or otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we
are accepting the COMMUNITY.
> One company is not a community.
As you've otherwise acknowledged,
Yes, congratulations!
On Jan 11, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Devin Han wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating RC7 ballot has ended. We have
> received 4 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 4 PPMC +1 votes)
> during the release voting on dev and general. The vote passed!
>
> Results:
>
> Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at
> least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report
> that this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated.
To be clear, *I* read every word of every Board report that we send on. I
don't take issue with whatever else you wrote.
Hi all,
The Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating RC7 ballot has ended. We have
received 4 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 4 PPMC +1 votes)
during the release voting on dev and general. The vote passed!
Results:
>From IPMC members:
name apache id
+1 Yegor Kozlov(me
Hi,
With 3 binding IPMC votes, this vote has passed. The following IPMC members
voted with a +1 on this release
Nick Burch
Chris Mattmann
Christian Grobmeier
We will work on releasing ODF Toolkit 0.5. Thank you everyone who worked in
this
release !
Thanks,
Devin
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
> With Jukka's vote, that's 2 down. We need one more...
... which highlights the fact that we need one more mentor for the
project. Tommaso and I are currently more or less actively mentoring
the project, while Gianugo doesn't seem to have
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
>
> The only point I was trying to make is that, as soon as discussions here were
> going in a direction where podlings over a year old should start coming up
> with a more concrete plan for graduation, I started this discussion on the
>
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:11 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
>>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>>>
>>> C
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Marcel Offermans
> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
>>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>>>
>>
On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>>
>> Celix
>
> A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not mak
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>>
>> Celix
>
> A plan is being discussed on the list, but d
As with most things in life, things need a kick from time to time.
What about collecting a nice list of 'what's the monthly report thingy about'
which explains that it's not just filed unread but is pretty important.
Plus again explain what information the board likes to get and that it's not
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the
>> incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was
>> nothing going on in the p
On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>
> Celix
A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's
report. I would kindly like to as
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote:
> Hi,
> Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the
> incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was
> nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll
> leav
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote:
> Hi,
> Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the
> incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was
> nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll
> leav
Hi,
Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the
incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was
nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll leave
Benson to clarify.
I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant
Re: Cordova was completely my fault. I think after writing it and
getting some quick consensus/approval my brain mistakenly filed it as
done. Won't happen again!
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Thank you Sam.
>
> Re Cordova: no idea why this has not been submitted. It had
Thank you Sam.
Re Cordova: no idea why this has not been submitted. It had been written by
a community member and commented by myself and Jukka on the Dev list in
plenty of time. Jukka already raised this issue on the Dev list prior to
your mail here. Conclusion, new project learning the ropes. Me
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't
>> review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other
>> people have to step up to help.
>
> This Boar
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't
> review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other
> people have to step up to help.
This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it
I read them. I'm also in favor of Daniel's suggestion to have a smaller,
trimmer IPMC. Me and Christian suggested that as well I believe or at
least I did (although my small number was something like "30") or something,
but that's a heck of a lot less than we have now on the IPMC.
Cheers,
Chris
And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't
review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other
people have to step up to help.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:58
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now
>> without any changes taking place.
>
> What changes would you like to see?
I would like to see the Incubator bou
+1 (binding)
Checksum and signature match, verifications from previous RCs hold b/c
only NOTICE and LICENSE have changed. -C
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Eric Yang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Chukwa 0.5.0 is ready for release. This will be the first incubator
> release for Chukwa.
>
> The source t
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now
> without any changes taking place.
What changes would you like to see?
Even if we did require all mentors to sign the reports to indicate
they're still alive some won
Ross Gardler wrote on Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 20:33:22 +:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Jan 11, 2012 7:59 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
> >
> > It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now
> > without any changes taking place. That
+1
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:07 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 January 2012 06:09, Eric Yang wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Chukwa 0.5.0 is ready for release. This will be the first incubator
>> release for Chukwa.
>>
>> The source tarball artifact is available at:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~eyang/chukw
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Jan 11, 2012 7:59 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>
> It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now
> without any changes taking place. That some of you doubt we even have a
> problem here is the sad part of t
It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now
without any changes taking place. That some of you doubt we even have a
problem here is the sad part of the state of the incubator.
- Original Message -
> From: ant elder
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I hate the fact that these discussions continue to happen in a vacuum
> devoid of any grasp of the reality that mentors typically don't do
> a fucking thing for their podlings. No they don't discuss reports
> on list, nor do they offer opinio
One more binding vote needed for this subpackage. Please somebody vote!
Karl
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Tommaso Teofili
wrote:
> +1
>
> Tommaso
>
> 2011/12/29 Karl Wright
>
>> Hello incubator,
>>
>> We've decided to release some of the ManifoldCF server or target
>> system plugins with th
We need one more binding IPMC vote for this sub-package. Any takers?
Karl
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Tommaso Teofili
wrote:
> +1
>
> Tommaso
>
> 2011/12/29 Karl Wright
>
>> Sorry - you can find the proposed release package at:
>> http://people.apache.org/~kwright.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 201
With Tommaso's and Jukka's vote, that's 2 down. We still need one
more binding IPMC vote for this subpackage.
Karl
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Tommaso Teofili
wrote:
> +1
>
> Tommaso
>
> 2011/12/29 Karl Wright
>
>> Sorry - you can find the proposed release package at:
>> http://people.apac
With Jukka's vote, that's 2 down. We need one more...
Karl
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Tommaso Teofili
wrote:
> +1
>
> Tommaso
>
> 2012/1/4 Karl Wright
>
>> Hello Incubator IPMC,
>>
>> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.4-incubating,
>> RC2. This RC has passed our podli
I think Jukka meant to post this to general@i.a.o...
Karl
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jukka Zitting
Date: Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-0.4-incubating, RC2
To: Karl Wright
Hi,
+1
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yes, we should send a message to mentors that business as usual ended
this month by closing the Incubator to new podlings for one month.
During that time we can get our house in order by going thru the disaster
zone we have created and start educating each other about mentor expectations
with some
You've identified several problems in your last mails -- do you also
have a suggestion on how to move forward?
If asked, my default suggestion would be to go for "what works
elsewhere", namely: reduce the IPMC to nine people, rotating annually,
who are expected to read and review all podling repor
I hate the fact that these discussions continue to happen in a vacuum
devoid of any grasp of the reality that mentors typically don't do
a fucking thing for their podlings. No they don't discuss reports
on list, nor do they offer opinions on how to grow a smallish podling's
committer base, nor do
On 11 January 2012 18:06, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 11 January 2012 17:49, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>>> +1 sig/xsum match up, tested clean and RAT reports fine.
>>>
>>> It's a bit odd to me that there are two source release artifacts here
>>> (one archiv
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 January 2012 17:49, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>> +1 sig/xsum match up, tested clean and RAT reports fine.
>>
>> It's a bit odd to me that there are two source release artifacts here
>> (one archived with tar/gz the other with zip), I've not seen that
On 11 January 2012 17:49, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> +1 sig/xsum match up, tested clean and RAT reports fine.
>
> It's a bit odd to me that there are two source release artifacts here
> (one archived with tar/gz the other with zip), I've not seen that for
> other projects. Typically you want to have a
+1 sig/xsum match up, tested clean and RAT reports fine.
It's a bit odd to me that there are two source release artifacts here
(one archived with tar/gz the other with zip), I've not seen that for
other projects. Typically you want to have a single source release
artifact. You could then create "c
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Michael Stroucken wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> Let's stop discussing this issue in the abstract then and take
>> a look at the current set of reports. Of the ones with signatures
>> of mentors, I see very little to gripe about- the topics and subjects
>> are
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM, sebb wrote:
> At the very least, please update the status page to document the name change.
Done.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For a
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Let's stop discussing this issue in the abstract then and take
a look at the current set of reports. Of the ones with signatures
of mentors, I see very little to gripe about- the topics and subjects
are mostly relevant to the podling's progress towards graduation.
Now lets
>-Original Message-
>From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:nic...@hedhman.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:25 PM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
>Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
>
>I like Joe's suggestion of having Mentors writing a report. But I
>would like t
>-Original Message-
>From: Franklin, Matthew B. [mailto:mfrank...@mitre.org]
>Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:45 AM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Cc: rave-...@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Rave 0.6-incubating
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: sebb [mail
On 10 January 2012 22:03, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> Whilst I agree there is value in demonstrating a starting podling what a good
> report
> should look like by doing it for them, I also strongly believe in learning by
> doing, so I
> would still propose that a podling has a go at it themselves,
+1 (binding)
Checked sigs, looked at the artifacts, all well
Cheers!
Christian
2012/1/9 Devin Han :
> Hi all,
>
> The ODF Toolkit 0.5 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator
> release.
> We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which had great results, including a
> +1 from our ment
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> If there is a community
> and that community doesn't want Apache to fork the code that they created,
> then we will not fork that code at Apache. If the original developers of the
> code do not want their license changed, then we will not
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Let's stop discussing this issue in the abstract then and take
> a look at the current set of reports. Of the ones with signatures
> of mentors,
I'm not sure looking at signatures on past reports is going to be
useful. We've never before di
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> But I guess it does meet the minimum size. If 3 is not enough, what
> number is? If it does become a problem, there's an attic process.
The project is already in the process of adding another committer. I
have every intention to put him on the
Hey hey,
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> Now the big question: is Etch a candidate for graduating to TLP?
>
> I think it is, given the facts. It will be a TLP with issues of
> activity, but so far user questions, development questions are
> answered and releases are cut.
I'll give it a couple of more days for folks to look into this, then
I'll propose the community to start work on graduation.
Martijn
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> +1 to graduate. This is a project in a fierce space as Martijn noted,
> and I think "incubating" is hamper
63 matches
Mail list logo
