Thanks many times Noel!
This also makes (for me) voting for Jukka again a proper process.
I'm therefore reconfirming my earlier retracted vote for Jukka, +1
Ate
On 02/10/2012 03:31 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
I'm ready to vote, but Chris said "it looks like the remaining f
+1
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 9, 2012 3:17 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
> chair and it looks like the remaining folks (in
Thank you Noel.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 10, 2012 2:32 AM, "Noel J. Bergman" wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > I'm ready to vote, but Chris said "it looks like the remaining folks
> > (including me) that were in the running have aligned beyond the
>
With Noel's email, this vote makes sense now.
+1 to Jukka (binding)
Cheers,
Andrus
On Feb 9, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
> chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including m
Thanks Craig. :)
regards,
Eric
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> This request was completed on January 20 based on your request.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Eric Yang wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> The result thread was sent to private@incubato
+1 to Jukka Zitting! (non-binding)
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1 to Jukka. Many Many Thanks to Noel for guiding us all these years.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> I'm ready to vote, but Chris said "it look
+1 to Jukka. Many Many Thanks to Noel for guiding us all these years.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> I'm ready to vote, but Chris said "it looks like the remaining folks
>> (including me) that were in the running have aligned beyond the
>> follow
Ross Gardler wrote:
> I'm ready to vote, but Chris said "it looks like the remaining folks
> (including me) that were in the running have aligned beyond the
> following nominee:" Where is the mail from Noel saying he is no longer
> standing? Have I missed something?
There wasn't one. I was trave
+1
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Martijn Dashorst wrote on Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 22:19:45 +0100:
> - Project website has been created
- Project website complies with trademarks@ guidelines
(Did you copy your list from somewhere? If so, I'll add that bullet
to it.)
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>>> From my perspective, Chris's proposal and Benson's vote above
>> effectively turned thi
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>>> From my perspective, Chris's proposal and Benson's vote above
>> effectively turned thi
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 9, 2012 7:27 PM, "Doug Cutting" wrote:
>
> On 02/09/2012 08:39 AM, sebb wrote:
> > In case it's not obvious, I agree with Ross, Andrus and Marcel - I
> > think the current VOTE thread is invalid and should be cancelled.
>
> I do
On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> +1 (binding)
>
> +1 (binding)
>
>> From my perspective, Chris's proposal and Benson's vote above
> effectively turned this into a single issue question: is now the time
> for Noah to be
On 02/09/2012 08:39 AM, sebb wrote:
> In case it's not obvious, I agree with Ross, Andrus and Marcel - I
> think the current VOTE thread is invalid and should be cancelled.
I don't see how it is invalid. Chris might have added more choices or
invited more discussion first, but he can call a vote.
+1
Doug
On 02/09/2012 07:16 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
> chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the
> running
> have aligned beyond the following nominee: Jukka
+1 for Jukka
As Sam said, the others are good candidates as well and Noel also did a
wonderful job all the years.
I expect that Jukka follows in his foot steps - maybe with a slight bit more
presence ;)
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Sam Ruby
> To: general@incubator.apa
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> +1 (binding)
+1 (binding)
>From my perspective, Chris's proposal and Benson's vote above
effectively turned this into a single issue question: is now the time
for Noah to be replaced by Jukka?
There are no question that all four individ
Imo it's always good to have a few pair of (active!) eyes having oversight.
It's just simply too easy to miss something important - even for a long-time
committed mentor.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Jim Jagielski
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Frid
On 02/09/2012 07:42 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> 2. I wrote an Incubator deconstruction proposal here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>
> I still wholly believe in the proposal and that it should be implemented.
> It contains a series of (potentially re
On 2/9/2012 11:29 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> (1) Why is the IPMC different from other PMCs and holding a personnel VOTEs
> on a public ML?
Just to clarify this single issue; by rights, adding committers and
committee members is a personal issue about those individuals. But
choosing a represent
I have observations
(1) Why is the IPMC different from other PMCs and holding a personnel VOTEs on
a public ML?
(2) Why is there such a hurry to call a [VOTE] without a prior [DISCUSS]?
(3) Why can't Chris start new threads by using New Message rather than a reply
to a prior thread with a sub
On 2/9/2012 10:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, if there's an election, the fair thing is to include all candidates
>> and see who gets the majority. A vote on just one candidate is odd.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I suggest that this VO
On 9 February 2012 17:11, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
>
>> On 02/09/2012 05:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-5?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Matt Franklin resolved PODLINGNAMESEARCH-5.
---
Resolution: Fixed
After examination of the results of this search an
On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 05:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>
Well, if there's an election, the fair thing is to include all
On 02/09/2012 05:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 9, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Well, if there's an election, the fair thing is to include all candidates and
see who gets the majority. A vote on just one candidate
On 02/09/2012 05:54 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
...I suggest that this VOTE be withdrawn, and a true election,
with all candidates be done...
Agreed - I think Chris assumed there was only one candidate, but it's
just an assumption AFAICS
On Feb 9, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, if there's an election, the fair thing is to include all candidates
>> and see who gets the majority. A vote on just one candidate is odd.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I suggest tha
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...I suggest that this VOTE be withdrawn, and a true election,
> with all candidates be done...
Agreed - I think Chris assumed there was only one candidate, but it's
just an assumption AFAICS.
-Bertrand
-
On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> Well, if there's an election, the fair thing is to include all candidates and
> see who gets the majority. A vote on just one candidate is odd.
>
Agreed.
I suggest that this VOTE be withdrawn, and a true election,
with all candidates b
On 9 February 2012 16:32, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 17:10 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ross,
>>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't see a mail from Noel, but he's already the chair.
>>> If this VOTE isn't successful, then
On Feb 9, 2012, at 17:10 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't see a mail from Noel, but he's already the chair.
>> If this VOTE isn't successful, then he'll remain the chair. If
>> you want to explicitly cal
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Paul
On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:16 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
> chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the
> running
> have aligned beyond the fo
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> By July we should then have a
> pretty accurate record of progress throughout the entire Incubator,
> including a clear list of podlings that are stuck and need help.
+1
- Sam Ruby
--
On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> Sorry, I didn't see a mail from Noel, but he's already the chair.
> If this VOTE isn't successful, then he'll remain the chair. If
> you want to explicitly call a VOTE for Noel, go ahead, but
> this is the VOTE I am int
Hi Ross,
Sorry, I didn't see a mail from Noel, but he's already the chair.
If this VOTE isn't successful, then he'll remain the chair. If
you want to explicitly call a VOTE for Noel, go ahead, but
this is the VOTE I am interested in calling, thanks!
Cheers,
Chris
On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Ro
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Sam suggested asking prodlings in category 2 to report back again next
>> month on their progress towards solving the mentioned issues.
>
> Hey, now don't go and start spreading false ru
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> [ ] +1 Recommend Jukka Zitting for the IPMC chair position.
+1 Greg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-
+1 (binding)
Karl Wright
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time
I'm ready to vote, but Chris said "it looks like the remaining folks
(including me) that were in the running have aligned beyond the
following nominee:" Where is the mail from Noel saying he is no longer
standing? Have I missed something?
Ross
On 9 February 2012 15:39, Ate Douma wrote:
> +1 (bin
+1 (binding)
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
> chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the
Hi Folks,
So here's what I personally am going to do to help move forward here
in the Incubator:
1. called VOTE for Jukka Zitting as chair. Seems at least for now, we need
a new chair, and we've discussed it enough, so there you have it.
2. I wrote an Incubator deconstruction proposal here:
http
+1 (binding)
Ate
On 02/09/2012 04:16 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hi Folks,
OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the
running
have aligned beyond the following nominee: Jukka Zi
+1 binding.
Thanks for putting up this vote Chris
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
> chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the
> running
>
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:16 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
> chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the
> running
> have aligned beyond the foll
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
> Sam suggested asking prodlings in category 2 to report back again next
> month on their progress towards solving the mentioned issues.
Hey, now don't go and start spreading false rumors here. Particularly
as the archives are available for
+1 (binding)
Tommaso
2012/2/9 Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
> chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in
> the running
> have aligned beyond the following nominee: Jukka Zitting. Su
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
> chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the
> running
> have aligned beyond the following nom
Hi Folks,
OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC
chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the
running
have aligned beyond the following nominee: Jukka Zitting. Suffice to say, he
was
*my first choice* :)
In the interest of mo
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> I spent some time unifying report formatting and fixing some minor
> issues (like Stanbol needing an intro paragraph). I also pinged
> NPanday and Zeta Components that have still not reported (both also
> missed their previous report), as
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://wwx.talend.com
- Reply message -
From: "Niall Pemberton"
To:
Subject: [VOTE] Apache BVal as a TLP
Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2012 1:02 am
+1
Niall
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Moh
+1 (binding)
Hadrian
On 02/08/2012 09:39 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi...
It has been discussed, since a while, about the graduation of Apache
BVal, whether to graduate to a TLP or Subproject and whether it is time or
not, [1], [2] and [3].
In the past few weeks there has been a [VOTE]
53 matches
Mail list logo
