On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> @ incubator general only:
It is not a problem in this case, but as a general rule do NOT forward
emails from restricted (in this case committer only) lists to a
publicly archived list without the approval of the person or people
which you quo
On Feb 6, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Florian Holeczek wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Tony, thanks for your explanation.
>>
>> @Incubator PMC:
>> The topic is "Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidelines" from
>> the Incubation Policy:
>> http://inc
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Florian Holeczek wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Tony, thanks for your explanation.
>
> @Incubator PMC:
> The topic is "Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidelines" from the
> Incubation Policy:
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Gradua
The voting period is now closed. Thanks to everyone who took the time to review
the release.
Binding IPMC votes:
+1 x3: Owen (from giraph-dev list on this release), Chris Douglas, Chris Mattman
-1 x0: {}
With three binding IPMC the vote passes and the release is good to go.
Thanks everyone!
Bill,
I am sorry that you perceived an ad-hominem attack in my email. If you
reread it, I think you will find that I described you as 'a vehement
opponent' of something. I do not believe that this meets the usual
standards for a personal attack; it doesn't comment on your character
at all, nor is
On 02/06/2012 05:12 PM, Florian Holeczek wrote:
Hi all,
Tony, thanks for your explanation.
@Incubator PMC:
The topic is "Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidelines" from the
Incubation Policy:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubat
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 6, 2012 7:15 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>
> On 2/6/2012 12:49 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> > On 02/05/2012 11:40 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> >> If the board decides to go that way, I am happy to see Chris in charge
> >> of
On 6 February 2012 19:38, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 13:18, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>> On Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2012 11:41 AM, "sebb" wrote:
>>> >...
>>> > Perhaps the answer to "W
Yes, Ate is right. There is likely to gee a situation in the future when
some of these files might contain creative content. I think Craig's
clarification covers this and there will, in the future, need to enhance
the code to strip licences.
My question here is about the way forward for a release
On 2/6/2012 1:33 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> It seems to me that one of the ideas would require some board
> assistance: Roy's 'IPMC as board' structure, in which, it seems to me,
> podlings (sooner or later) take binding votes on their own releases
> and committers, but the board delegates su
On 2/6/2012 1:33 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Bill has also been the most vehement opponent of one of the
> possible evolutionary strategies: to elect people to the PMC on the
> strength (only) of their ability and willingness to supervise single
> podlings.
Let's be clear, it wasn't an election
On 02/06/2012 07:18 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
On Feb 6, 2012 11:41 AM, "sebb" wrote:
...
Perhaps the answer to "Why is a licensing header necessary?"
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-heade
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 13:18, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2012 11:41 AM, "sebb" wrote:
>> >...
>> > Perhaps the answer to "Why is a licensing header necessary?"
>> > http://www.
Bill characterized this situation as writing a proposal to the board
to to blow up and replace the incubator, and that has colored my
writing. Bill has also been the most vehement opponent of one of the
possible evolutionary strategies: to elect people to the PMC on the
strength (only) of their abi
On 2/6/2012 12:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> My biggest problem is that the proposal moves undefined responsibilities to
>> ComDev while none of the candidates have actually spoken to ComDev about
>> this
>
> As a comdev PMC memb
On 2/6/2012 12:49 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 02/05/2012 11:40 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> If the board decides to go that way, I am happy to see Chris in charge
>> of the transition.
>
> It's not the board's decision to make. The folks in the Incubator need
> to decide what they as volunteer
Excellent clarification, and certainly removes doubt (for me) in this case.
Thanks.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 6, 2012 6:31 PM, "Craig L Russell" wrote:
>
> I added comments to the JIRA:
>
> Reading the examples provided gives me the idea that there is
On 02/05/2012 11:40 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> If the board decides to go that way, I am happy to see Chris in charge
> of the transition.
It's not the board's decision to make. The folks in the Incubator need
to decide what they as volunteers want to do. As a board member, either
approach is
I added comments to the JIRA:
Reading the examples provided gives me the idea that there is little
creativity. Most of the content is required by the xml formatting
rules. Look at the files after removing the xml: result collapsible ID
TITLE detail.
That said, the rule is absolute. I'd p
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
>
> On Feb 6, 2012 11:41 AM, "sebb" wrote:
> >...
> > Perhaps the answer to "Why is a licensing header necessary?"
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-whyheader
> > is relev
On Feb 6, 2012 11:41 AM, "sebb" wrote:
>...
> Perhaps the answer to "Why is a licensing header necessary?"
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-whyheader
> is relevant here.
>
> The README file is generally not going to be modified - or seen in
> isolation - so it's not so necessary
On Feb 6, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Hi, Ate,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 02:33:11AM +0100, Ate Douma wrote:
What worries me a lot about the recent proposals, not only the text
above, is that project autonomy seems to be measured foremost by just
doing proper releases.
To me, Apach
On 6 February 2012 16:30, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
>> On 02/06/2012 03:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM,
Hi, Ate,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 02:33:11AM +0100, Ate Douma wrote:
> What worries me a lot about the recent proposals, not only the text
> above, is that project autonomy seems to be measured foremost by just
> doing proper releases.
>
> To me, Apache == Community over code.
The case I have be
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 03:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
wrote:
>
>
>
On 6 February 2012 16:07, sebb wrote:
> On 6 February 2012 15:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 6 February 2012 15:20, sebb wrote:
>>> As I read it, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>> only applies to files with no creative content.
>>>
>>> AFAICT this is not the case her
On 6 February 2012 15:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 6 February 2012 15:20, sebb wrote:
>> As I read it, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>> only applies to files with no creative content.
>>
>> AFAICT this is not the case here.
>
> Can you tell me why you think this is t
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
> ...A zip with the source distribution and one with the compiled tdb launcher
> are available with their signatures at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-RC6/
+1 for the release, with two minor things to fix:
1) md5 or
On 6 February 2012 15:20, sebb wrote:
> As I read it, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> only applies to files with no creative content.
>
> AFAICT this is not the case here.
Can you tell me why you think this is the case?
As a reminder, in my original post I said:
"T
As I read it, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
only applies to files with no creative content.
AFAICT this is not the case here.
On 6 February 2012 15:03, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Perfect - thanks Ate
>
> On 6 February 2012 14:54, Ate Douma wrote:
>> On 02/06/2012 03:30
Perfect - thanks Ate
On 6 February 2012 14:54, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 03:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
wrote:
>
On 02/06/2012 03:40 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
[legal-discuss@?]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
Would it be acceptable for these files to *not* have licence headers in them?
Going further, you may want to explicitly declare that downstream
users have the right to di
On 02/06/2012 03:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
wrote:
I am sure you know this (especially since you first pointed me at this
page), but the release FA
Hi,
[legal-discuss@?]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Would it be acceptable for these files to *not* have licence headers in them?
Going further, you may want to explicitly declare that downstream
users have the right to distribute their widgets under whatever terms
they
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am sure you know this (especially since you first pointed me at this
>>> page), but the release FAQ [1] makes it sound like y
On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
wrote:
I am sure you know this (especially since you first pointed me at this page),
but the release FAQ [1] makes it sound like you need the header, if you assume
your templates are source:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
wrote:
> I am sure you know this (especially since you first pointed me at this page),
> but the release FAQ [1] makes it sound like you need the header, if you
> assume your templates are source:
>
> Which Files Must Contain An ASF Lice
On 6 February 2012 01:33, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 01:41 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:26:47PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> It might be worthwhile to require 3 ASF members on the initial release,
>>> 2 on the next, 1 on the following and then trus
2012/2/6 Francesco Chicchiriccò
> On 03/02/2012 22:30, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
> >> Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I
+1 on what Jukka said.
...ant
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> +1
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> 2012/2/5 Jukka Zitting :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I find it unfortunate that the PMC chair nominations got turned into a
>> debate about the future of the Incubator, especially when the o
40 matches
Mail list logo
