Thanks for voting. The vote passes as follows:
+1 (binding): Tom White,
Patrick Hunt
Alan Gates
+1 (non binding): Roman Shaposhnik,
Konstantin Boudnik,
Johnny Zha
On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>
> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then
On 21.08.2012 17:29, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a re
sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
> has concluded.
>
> The ballot passed.
>
> VOTE TALLY
>
> +1:
>
> IPMC members:
>
> +1 Marvin Humphrey
> +1
The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
has concluded.
The ballot passed.
VOTE TALLY
+1:
IPMC members:
+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski
For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-de
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>
>>> This is an unreasonable request
On Aug 21, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>
> When the option to be "fair" ex
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>
>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>> The notice file ha
On 8/21/12 5:10 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>> * I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
>>> able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it
>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>
> When the option to be "fair"
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> * I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
>> able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
>> close, though seemingly not exact. The
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
When the option to be "fair" exists, "fair" is great!
With regards to my own vote, I'm going t
On 21 August 2012 14:38, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warr
On 21/08/12 15:24, Rob Weir wrote:
[...]
> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break
> them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
> Give them 30 minutes. Compare the res
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-12?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13438756#comment-13438756
]
Antonio Sanso commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-12:
US Trademark Se
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>
>>> This is an unreasonable request. T
I would like to offer a very loud +1 to Bertrand's email.
Here we are on a community graduation vote thread. This sub-discussion
would seem to lead to one of three outcomes:
1) No place new. AOO proceeds out of the incubator operating under the
current regime, and those AOO community members who
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>
>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>> The notice file ha
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> ...As one of the active developers I would have a serious problem if we as
> project couldn't provide binary releases for our users. And I thought
> the ASF is a serious enough institution that can ensure to deliver
> binaries of these very
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>
> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
> ju
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
justify this new requirement?
It is not fair to the
On 8/21/12 12:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
>> Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with a
On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
> Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11 million
> downloads.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
>>> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
>>
>> Thank you, D
On 8/21/12 12:03 AM, drew wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 13:32 -0700, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> Per the IPMC's "Guide to Successful Graduation" [1] this is the
>>> optional, but recommended, community vote for us to express our
>>> willingness/r
[X] +1 Graduate Oozie podling from Apache Incubator
(binding)
Regards,
Arvind Prabhakar
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
> This is the second call for vote to graduate Oozie podling from Apache
> Incubator, comments and suggestions received during the first call have
On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
>> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
>
> Thank you, Dave. I consider your statement to override the assertion on
>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Officially, no Apache project has ever, ever, released a binary.
>
> Apache projects have published convenience binaries to accompany their
> releases, which have been, by definition, source
Agreed - for the Flex podling the mentors h
+1
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hi Folks!
>
> The deltaspike-0.3-incubating vote has internally passed with lots of +1.
>
> We have 2 IPMC +1 so far and like to ask for a tough review from fellow IPMCs.
>
> [+1] all fine, ship it
> [+0] I don't care but smells fine
> [-
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
> Please cast your votes:
> [X] +1 Graduate Oozie podling from Apache Incubator
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additi
On Aug 20, 2012 5:06 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>...
> > -1
> >
> > I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> > release:
...
> I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to
argue with Rob
Rob: I believe it is rather foolish to argue that Roy is incorrect.
For starters, he wrote the Bylaws, and is well-versed in the intent of this
Foundation. Second, the Foundation policies take precedence over
third-party concepts, so whether you/OSI may define a binary as open source
is wholly imm
33 matches
Mail list logo
