Roman Shaposhnik wrote on Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 18:05:15 -0800:
> +infra
>
> Ping! I would really like this annoyance to be resolved one way or the other.
> Could somebody more experienced with Apache web properties answer
> the question?
>
> ===
Hi,
> I think that would be a fine choice. I'm fine with releasing it as is for
> now
> +1 (binding).
>
Thanks! Could you post your vote to the formal release thread as well?
>
> That said -- I'd like to see the next release take into account the
> feedback
> that has been provided to the proje
On Nov 30, 2012, at 3:03 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Alexander Broekhuis
> wrote:
>> I am fine with a change of the format. But at the moment we (Celix) still
>> have a pending release. Seeing that many other project use different
>> formats, I personally don'
Hence my idea to do away with the rule of thumb and stick to at least one
responsible PMC member.
What problem are we trying to avoid by having this activity/diversity boundary?
Regards,
Alan
On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters
+infra
Ping! I would really like this annoyance to be resolved one way or the other.
Could somebody more experienced with Apache web properties answer
the question?
> Question: how do we go about discouraging it then? Do we need a vote
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Alexander Broekhuis
wrote:
> I am fine with a change of the format. But at the moment we (Celix) still
> have a pending release. Seeing that many other project use different
> formats, I personally don't see this as a show stopper for our current
> release..
>
> C
As per recent email, this is, formally, an act of the IPMC to certify
that the IP is clear and the community good Apache citizens, followed
by an act of the accepting project, and the board expects that the
accepting project will report on the process promptly.
I'm sure various will correct me if
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Luciano Resende
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Luciano Resende >wrote:
> >
> >> Apache Nuvem will define an open application programming interface
> >> for common cloud application services
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
>> Apache Nuvem will define an open application programming interface
>> for common cloud application services, allowing applications to be
>> easily ported across the most popular c
Just trying to clarify, based on [1] it seems that when a project is
graduating into an existing TLP, once the IPMC vote is done, there is no
need to seek Board approval and the hand-over and infrastructure tasks can
start happening.
Is that the correct understanding ?
[1] http://incubator.apache
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> The Apache Wink project entered incubator in May of 2009. Since then
> it has grown the community in users, committers and PPMC members,
> made significant improvements to the project codebase and completed
> many releases following ASF pol
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> The Apache Wink project entered incubator in May of 2009. Since then
> it has grown the community in users, committers and PPMC members,
> made significant improvements to the project codebase and completed
> many releases following ASF pol
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> Apache Nuvem will define an open application programming interface
> for common cloud application services, allowing applications to be
> easily ported across the most popular cloud platforms. It is
> currently composed of multiple cloud SC
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> Apache Nuvem will define an open application programming interface
> for common cloud application services, allowing applications to be
> easily ported across the most popular cloud platforms. It is
> currently composed of multiple cloud SC
Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters of the recent 'small
graduates' was that they had around 5 initial PMC members, and some
detectable evidence that all of them were in the reasonably regular
habit of contributing code, let alone voting for releases. If we
insist on testing the absolute
On 29/11/12 14:53, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members requirement? What
constitutes active?...
IMO the bare minimum is being able to find three PMC members to vote
on things when needed.
On 29 November 2012 21:28, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> == Relationships with Other Apache Projects
>
> Although current RDF/SPARQL support in LMF is build on top of OpenRDF Sesame
> API, Marmotta is closely related to many Apache projects, such as Stanbol,
> Jena and Any23. See “Alignment” above.
Hi
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Ralph
>
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:28 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
> proposal:
> >
> > Please cast your votes on whether t
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:28 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
> proposal:
>
> Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept Marmotta into the Apache I
On Nov 29, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 29 November 2012 14:59, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera
>> wrote:
... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members
>>
On 29 November 2012 14:59, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera
> wrote:
> >> ... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members
> requirement? What constitutes active?...
> >
> > IMO the bar
+1 (binding).
Cheers,
Chris
On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:28 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
> proposal:
>
> Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept Marmotta into the
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Dave Fisher
> wrote:
> > +1 binding
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> Following the discussion thread,
http://www.apache.org/dev/infra-contact#requesting-graduation
outlines the jira tickets infra would like to see when a project
requests resources migration at TLP graduation. The biggest change is
that DNS/website/mailinglists are handled by 1 ticket.
Some caveats not documented there are:
- The
On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>> ... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members requirement?
>> What constitutes active?...
>
> IMO the bare minimum is being able to find three PMC members to vote
>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members requirement? What
>constitutes active?...
IMO the bare minimum is being able to find three PMC members to vote
on things when needed.
Once a project gets below this limit it's in t
+1
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
>> proposal:
>>
>> Please cast your votes on whether t
+1 binding
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
> proposal:
>
> Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept Marmotta into
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
> Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal:
>
+1 (binding)
Best Regards,
Nandana
On Nov 29, 2012, at 1:14 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 29 November 2012 08:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Greg Reddin wrote:
>>> ...What difference does it make to
>>> the ASF if a project is very small or very slow?...
>>
>> IMO, as long as there's three or
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> ...Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal...
+1 with a small caveat:
>... = Nominated Mentors
>
> Fabian Christ (fchrist at apache dot org)...
Fabian is not currently a member of the Incubator PMC, so
+1 binding
Regards,
Alan
On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:28 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept Marmotta into the Apache Incubator
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to the acceptance of Marmotta
> [ ] -1 Do not accept the Marmotta pro
+1 (binding)
On 29/11/12 12:00, Fabian Christ wrote:
+1 (unbinding since I am not yet an IPMC member)
2012/11/29 Ross Gardler
+1 (binding)
On 29 November 2012 11:28, Andy Seaborne wrote:
Hi there,
Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
proposal:
Plea
+1 (unbinding since I am not yet an IPMC member)
2012/11/29 Ross Gardler
> +1 (binding)
>
>
> On 29 November 2012 11:28, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
> > proposal:
> >
> > Please cast your votes on whether
+1 (binding)
On 29 November 2012 11:28, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
> proposal:
>
> Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept Marmotta into the Apache Incubator
>
Hi there,
Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
proposal:
Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal:
[ ] +1 Accept Marmotta into the Apache Incubator
[ ] +0 Indifferent to the acceptance of Marmotta
[ ] -1 Do not accept the Mar
On Monday, November 26, 2012, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> ...One of the mentors is not yet formally a member of IPMC so
> we're waiting until we have three formal mentors before calling
> the proposal vote
IMO you can go forward with the vote and indicate that having Fabian as a
mentor is "pending
On 29 November 2012 08:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Greg Reddin wrote:
> > ...What difference does it make to
> > the ASF if a project is very small or very slow?...
>
> IMO, as long as there's three or more active PMC members who react when
> needed, and provi
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Greg Reddin wrote:
> > ...What difference does it make to
> > the ASF if a project is very small or very slow?...
>
> IMO, as long as there's three or more active PMC members who react when
> needed, an
On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Greg Reddin wrote:
> ...What difference does it make to
> the ASF if a project is very small or very slow?...
IMO, as long as there's three or more active PMC members who react when
needed, and provide the quarterly board reports, a small/slow project is
fine and t
Hi all,
>
> Question: how do we go about discouraging it then? Do we need a vote
> to modify the content of:
>http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#md5
>
>
I am fine with a change of the format. But at the moment we (Celix) still
have a pending release. Seeing that many other project use d
Hi Alexei,
Chukwa started before Flume and Kafka started. Flume community has
flourish with Cloudera behind it. In my experience Flume has been more
fluid, and Chukwa has been more solid. Chukwa can't swim in flume 1.2
branch because flume is becoming more like Chukwa. Unfortunately, most of
C
42 matches
Mail list logo
