On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Ian Boston wrote:
> On 2 October 2012 10:58, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Relax, we aren't that dumb as an org to accept
>> signatures from fictitious entities. The board
>> knows everyone's identity, and ultimately they
>> are the ones who ratify these PMC rosters.
>>
>
On 2 October 2012 10:58, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Relax, we aren't that dumb as an org to accept
> signatures from fictitious entities. The board
> knows everyone's identity, and ultimately they
> are the ones who ratify these PMC rosters.
>
Sorry,
(I *was* being dumb :), I should have checked, fee
iclas.txt contains the full record of every processed
ICLA at Apache and it is available to every member of
the org. Traditionally it is expected of the membership
to keep the details of that file confidential, and
to date I'm not aware of a single exception.
>
Another example was from early apache httpd days where a person used a
pseudonym.
People (not me, I can't even remember his handle) knew who he was, but it was
never made public.
regards
Ian
On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Ian Boston wrote:
> Upayavira is not a good example of anonymity, as he i
Relax, we aren't that dumb as an org to accept
signatures from fictitious entities. The board
knows everyone's identity, and ultimately they
are the ones who ratify these PMC rosters.
>
> From: Ian Boston
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Monday, Octob
Upayavira is not a good example of anonymity, as he is not.
I think his name is sometimes prefixed by Dh and he is quite open
about his identity. [1],[2],[3]
I trust the Foundation knows the true identity of rgb-es. IIRC, any
legal document signed by an incognito is not binding, and we should
hav
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> No, just like Upayavira doesn't.
Oh, I thought he was just a person-of-single-name, like a number of
people I've met (often from Indonesia).
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> From: Benson Margulies
>>To: general@incubator.ap
No, just like Upayavira doesn't.
>
> From: Benson Margulies
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 8:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] [PMC] Starting Membership for Apache OpenOffice PMC
>
>On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Dave Fisher wrote
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> FYI - This is being done in public!
>
Who or what is an RGB.ES? Don't PMC members have to disclose an identity?
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Andrew Rist
>> Date: October 1, 2012 3:38:03 PM PDT
>> To: ooo-...@incub
FYI - This is being done in public!
Regards,
Dave
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Andrew Rist
> Date: October 1, 2012 3:38:03 PM PDT
> To: ooo-...@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] [PMC] Starting Membership for Apache OpenOffice PMC
> Reply-To: ooo-...@incubator.apache.org
> delivered-to:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote on Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 00:06:38 +0200:
>> PPS. It would be nice if we could use Apache Steve for the election.
>> Volunteers?
Seems a bit premature. Let's see if we have more than one candidate.
So far we have none.
>
Jukka Zitting wrote on Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 00:06:38 +0200:
> PPS. It would be nice if we could use Apache Steve for the election.
> Volunteers?
Volunteers for what? To use Steve you'll need
a) root@ to start the webapp
b) volunteer vote counters (monitors)
c) list of email addresses of the e
Congratulations, Jukka! You've done a fantastic job!
Karl
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Jukka Zitting
> wrote:
>> Finally, if elected (and assuming the IPMC still exists), I'd serve
>> for at most two years before calling for a
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Finally, if elected (and assuming the IPMC still exists), I'd serve
> for at most two years before calling for a re-election, or possibly
> much less if I don't find enough free cycles to perform the duty as
> well as it should.
As alre
looks good to me. Status file is up2date as well.
congratulations!
+1 from me ;)
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Dan Haywood
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 12:28 PM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Apache Isis graduation - resolution (prior
All,
The Apache Isis podling has just had a community vote to graduate [1],
which has succeeded [2]. This is in line with recent status reports to the
Incubator board, [3], [4].
According to [5], the next step for us to follow is to ask for feedback on
the resolution that we voted upon. For con
Ok, fair enough. My goal was to make everyone aware of the nastiness
surrounding wurfl.xml, and that goal is hereby achieved :)
Now let's concentrate on the IP evaluation process. Here is my +1 for this
vote.
Andrus
On Sep 28, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 20
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> I guess from our point of view the decision is whether the donation of
> that data can be considered voluntary, as the ownership of the
> original data is somewhat unclear. The header of the original data
> file [2] states that "the inf
The vote has now closed. The results are:
Bertrand Delacretaz +1
Olivier Lamy + 1
Along with the 17 other +1's which can be viewed at
http://markmail.org/thread/lkgvtg3t6r3wxvwj.
The vote is ***successful***
Apache Cordova 2.1 has officially been voted in as our first release!
On Fri, Sep 21,
Ok, fair enough. My goal was to make everyone aware of the nastiness
surrounding wurfl.xml, and that goal is hereby achieved :)
Now let's concentrate on the IP evaluation process. Here is my +1 for this
vote.
Andrus
On Sep 28, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 201
Upayavira wrote on Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 13:42:04 +0100:
> This is something I recall from clarifications by Roy some while back -
> made a lot of sense to me. I'm not aware of it being documented
> anywhere, nor am I aware of it having been collectively agreed. If we
> can work out where,
www.apac
This is something I recall from clarifications by Roy some while back -
made a lot of sense to me. I'm not aware of it being documented
anywhere, nor am I aware of it having been collectively agreed. If we
can work out where, I'd be happy to write it up.
Upayavira
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 01:35 PM
Upayavira wrote on Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 13:26:00 +0100:
> Note, podlings are free to check in IP that is dubious from a *policy*
> perspective (i.e. incompatible with Apache License), but should not, as
> I see it, check in anything that is dubious from a *legal* one (i.e. it
> is not and should no
Note, podlings are free to check in IP that is dubious from a *policy*
perspective (i.e. incompatible with Apache License), but should not, as
I see it, check in anything that is dubious from a *legal* one (i.e. it
is not and should not be public, or we don't have *any* rights to
distribute). While
Okay, thanks. :)
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Podling frequently check in dubious IP as part of initial imports, and
> then clean up HEAD later. I've never seen any evidence of a more
> thorough extirpation.
>
>
Podling frequently check in dubious IP as part of initial imports, and
then clean up HEAD later. I've never seen any evidence of a more
thorough extirpation.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For a
Makes sense, thanks for clarifying!
Upayavira wrote on Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:30:56 +0100:
> Here's my take:
>
> As I see it, anything that goes into SVN we need to be sure we have the
> _legal_ right to redistribute, regardless of any compatibility or
> otherwise with the Apache License (e.g. G
Hi,
just wanted to add what I have learned during Stanbol incubation:
The ASF releases source code, only. The repo should contain only the
sources - and no binary code (JARs) at all. This is fundamental to the
idea of open source. Once you start hosting binaries the users can not
be sure what the
Here's my take:
As I see it, anything that goes into SVN we need to be sure we have the
_legal_ right to redistribute, regardless of any compatibility or
otherwise with the Apache License (e.g. GPL in our repo is not a
disaster).
It is a _policy_ decision of the ASF that anything that goes into A
29 matches
Mail list logo
