On Wednesday, December 3, 2014, Jake Farrell wrote:
> +0
>
> concerns being:
> - would this project be better suited as a part an existing ASF project,
> AOO or ODF Toolkit
AOO developers suggested to start a new project, without the history. See
also comments in this thread from pescetti (chair
+1 (binding)
Verified signature and checksum, DISCLAIMER, NOTICE, and LICENSE look
good (specifically, checked licensing for deps: jquery, bootstrap,
glyphicons, and fontawesome). Minor nits:
- the gradlew script and wrapper jar are missing from the top level
(referenced in docs; not sure whether
Podlings,
Don't forget that all reports are due by end of day today. There are many
reports still missing.
John
+0
concerns being:
- would this project be better suited as a part an existing ASF project,
AOO or ODF Toolkit
- what is the impact of code from UX Write not being included as a part of
the proposal to the project
- would like to see more mentors added
-Jake
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:08 PM, jan
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM, jan i wrote:
> ...So accepting a podling is a procedural vote, maybe that the word we should
> add to http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#vote...
Yeah or maybe you can be even more precise and add "procedural as per
http://www.apache.org/foundation/vot
On 3 December 2014 at 18:25, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:17 PM, jan i wrote:
> > ...Personally I see it as any number of +1 and no -1, but again I still
> cannot
> > find the documentation...
>
> It's at http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
So accepting a pod
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:17 PM, jan i wrote:
> ...Personally I see it as any number of +1 and no -1, but again I still cannot
> find the documentation...
It's at http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
-Bertrand
-
To unsub
On 2 December 2014 at 18:32, Matt Franklin wrote:
> On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 12:25:33 PM Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>
> > Apache PMCs, including the incubator PMC, operate by consensus except
> > in a very small number of enumerated exceptional cases. So, the vote,
> > I think, is a test of consensu