On May 20, 2004, at 7:57 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
[ ] +1 - The Geronimo project has met the requirements
for incubation and will be recommended to the
board for TLP status
+1
-aaron
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [
On May 18, 2004, at 5:48 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I'm changing the subject to make it clear to those skimming their mail
that
this is a VOTE to incubate Beehive, based upon their proposal.
See:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/BrowseList?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tor.apache.org&by=thread&fr
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 07:37:38PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> You are talking about oversight and reporting. By ensuring that multiple
> PMC members are participating on each PPMC; by instilling a sense of
> responsibility and accountability in the PPMC, itself; by using the STATUS
> file; an
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:13:46PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> When did liason come into this? I am confused as to what on earth
> oversite and assistance has to do with liason? I am also confused as to
> why having an identified person would restrict others from being involved?
Because i
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:27:54AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
> IMHO, as long as a project still requires a "point man" (or
> as long as the PMC still requires such a person in order to
> be kept up to date of what is happening in the directory
> project), the project is not ready for graduation.
I
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 03:06:27AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > However there should be one person (the single mentor that we
> > originally had) who is tracking the project, the PPMC etc.,
> > holding them to task and making the Incubator PMC aware of any
> > issues. That to me is a critical
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:02:44AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >Who are the set of people who may add themselves to this list?
>
> Apache, Incubator and landing PMC members. Apache members that join
> should be made part of the Incubator PMC.
I don't know what a landing PMC member is, but
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:20:40AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Again? They are already voted in with the proposal, so I don't see why
> they have to be voted in *again*.
Because that is the intuitive way of doing it while having to put all
this stuff in the proposal makes things really com
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 06:16:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> >>I should finally add that we have basically agreed also that the PPMC is
> >>made of all PMC members and all the committers+landing PMC members, but
> >>that only the
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 03:43:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> >Why must it be one person? The entire Incubator PMC is responsible, so
> >why should we limit this to one person?
>
> Not saying there should be only one mentor (in fact I w
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:44:40PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> The role of Mentor is a self-selecting title (eg. anyone wishing to
> become a Mentor and has the title to be one as described in our policy
> just adds themselves to the projects/index webpage + the project status
> page and
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 02:22:26AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> When the Incubator is coming up for its own quarterly report, I think that
> the Incubator Chair can send out a reminder to each PPMC list reminding
> them. The PMC, for its part, can and should make sure that there is
> sufficient
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 08:39:00AM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> My one concern is that at the moment we have a mentor who has been
> officially assigned to assist the project in question, who is a single
> contact for the new developers in the event of issues and who is the
> single person t
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 11:23:40AM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Onto the overall thought - do they have to be "Practice" PMCs? To me it
> sounds very patronsing, although that might just be a culture thing.
>
> On a more serious note however, to me PPMCs are more than practice -
> they are
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 03:58:43PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >>The status updates are posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED], prior ACK
> >>from any Incubator PMC member.
> >
> >Does this need an ACK?
>
> I reckon it would need a "go-ahead" from the community, requiring an ACK
> from a mentor is p
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 02:58:13PM +0100, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> How about if we had a single list: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]," consisting
> of at least one Incubator PMC member, all Logging Services
> PMC members, and developers from the incoming projects to be
> incubated?
Ah ok I understand now. The Logg
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 10:32:08AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> > How about if we had a single list: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]," consisting
> > of at least one Incubator PMC member, all Logging Services
> > PMC members, and developers from the incoming projects to be
> > incubated?
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 12:45:34PM +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> I have just added the following to incubator/site/projects/jaxme.cwiki. Is
> this sufficient?
+1
-aaron
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additio
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:40:58PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> No, I never said anything of the kind. I agreed with what you said,
> although I would actually suggest that the status be posted to general@,
> once agreed upon.
Sounds good to me. +1
-aaron
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:49:10AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> This is not exactly how it should work.
>
> What happens ATM: if a problem has to be solved on the private PMC list,
> we have to use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This is a *big* problem, as the future PMCers of the project in questi
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:32:11AM -0800, Andy Cutright wrote:
> i'm interested in the web of trust as well. i've just started following
> the incubator/ infrastructure lists. is there a summary of the proposals
> some where?
>
> i imagine there are a number of apache committers in the SF bay are
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:47:31AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >I don't agree that Incubator PMC members should only be second-class
> >PPMCers. If an Incubator PMC member wishes to volunteer their time
> >to participate as a seed PMC member on the new PPMC, then they
> >should be a first-cl
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:47:43PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > The status update occurs on the PPMC list. Thus, the notion of
> > > reporting to the "main Incubator PMC" is a non-issue, as all
> > > Incubator PMC members are also on the PPMC.
>
> > I also disagree with this. The purpose of
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:16:49PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
[snip everything above that I agree with]
> Incubator PMC members not engaged in active discussion and development
> on a project are on the project PPMC in quality of observers. They
> should refrain from voting on PPMC decis
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:47:43PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> A PMC policy to be determined is whether the PPMC mailing list is optional
> for PMC members. The one mailing list created to date (geronimo-ppmc) is
> opt-in, although I did pre-subscribe you (along with myself, Geir and
> James).
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 01:31:18PM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 12:20, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > The "Incubator Reorg" threads have brought the Incubator to the
> > definition of a new set of rules, that aim to simplify, streamline and
> > generally make the process of
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:55:15AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
> ...
> >Can we get the committers to vote/voice their opinion here so we can
> >finally wrap this up?
>
> We have decided that the name must be reconsidered by the project. We
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:04:58PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2003, at 5:40 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote:
[...]
> > I would
> >like to hear what the current Geronimo committers think about the
> >vote, and if they are ok with selecting a new name (or i
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:41:46PM -0800, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> I believe the most appropriate thing is to table this for the PPMC to
> handle.
What's the point of pretending the PPMC can take responsibility for
this when at the end of it a bunch of people are going to say it has
to change it's
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 07:28:09AM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:04:46PM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >> Put in tangible terms, I would much prefer to see a incubator puruse a
> >> vote of [no] confidence in the Ge
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:58:02AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> IMNSHO Geronimo can easily go on without a logo or a final name for a
> couple of weeks if needed, so I'll wait to get 3 done after 1 and 2 are
> done.
Please don't postpone this any longer. We have had a vote. I would
like to
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:03:31PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> I'm getting annoyed by the high number of mails I write that get cced to
> members. If members want to participate in the Incubator, there is a
> mailing list, so please cut it off.
I agree completely. Can we please stop pollu
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:04:46PM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Put in tangible terms, I would much prefer to see a incubator puruse a
> vote of [no] confidence in the Geronimo PPC than to have the incubator
> continue to debate the name of the project.
There is no Geronimo PMC.
The mere fact that
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 08:53:55PM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> > [ -0 ] - Let them keep "Geronimo" as the official name.
> > [ -0 ] - Punt the decision to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [ -1 ] - Disallow "Geronimo" but allow the committ
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 05:04:52PM +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>
> Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> >The fact of the matter is that, in the USA, any mention of any minority
> >(aka non-white) historical figure or group of people, by persons not in
> >that group, is guaranteed to cause someone to be offend
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 01:25:40PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> [ ] - Let them keep "Geronimo" as the official name.
> [ ] - Punt the decision to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [X] - Disallow "Geronimo" but allow the committers to come up with any
> other
The Geronimo folks are talking about making logos and there seems to
be a desire to have official signoff on the name. Please vote on one
of the following choices:
[ ] - Let them keep "Geronimo" as the official name.
[ ] - Punt the decision to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ ] - Disallow "Geronimo" but
I like that one, although it does a lot like "June". I guess
that's not a problem.
+1
-aaron
On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 07:23 PM, tetsuo wrote:
- Jun (japanese for excellence, genius;
pure, innocent; conform to, standard)
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 07:06 AM, Jack Frosch wrote:
Open source projects typically solve a problem not addressed by
commercial vendors, even if the problem is just the price being
charged for the commercial solution. Yet we already have a very
popular, open-source J2EE container in J
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 03:48 AM, James Strachan wrote:
So to avoid drowning out other general-incubator discussions and to
help keep the noise down for folks who only want to keep track of
geronimo I'd like to propose a new geronimo-only mail list be created.
How about
[EMAIL PROTEC
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 08:51 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
James/Geir need to create a PROPOSAL.html or some such.
To do this, they need CVS.
Post any files you want committed, or patches, and I or someone
with appropriate privs can commit them. Eventually we'll get sick
of committing all yo
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 10:26 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I have received a request from Sacha Labourey (from the JBoss group)
to review the existing code in our J2EE project to check whether there
any IP issues with respect to the JBoss group. Sounds like a
reasonable request to me. Are we
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 08:43 AM, Gareth Bryan wrote:
For those of us not in the know / new to ASF etc: Could someone from
the
board post a message detailing what plans / discussions have already
been
made?
Fortunately, very few decisions have been made (none that I can think
of)
that
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 09:49 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
If the STATUS file hasn't been updated in 3 months, and you see
something that
needs fixing, update it yourself!
I noticed that you think the incubator PMC is responsible for doing
the *work*
of incubation. That is a false assumption.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 03:15 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
Yes, I've looked at the STATUS file. You can't miss it -- it's
autoposted every week. That doesn't change that the file hasn't been
updated in 3 months. Yes, the CLAs and the software grant are being
worked on. The code is being s
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:20 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
This is embarrassing. How can we have incubated several projects and
not have this worked out? No wonder people are complaining about the
incubator.
It was never this big of an issue then (and I still don't think
it's that big of an
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 07:23 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
IMHO it depends on what the incubator PMC does. If they *do* create
the
lists and the such then maybe they should set policy (meaning telling
other
people what do do == policy). If they rely on the XML project and the
XMLBeans f
I can't remember if we have a precedence set here or not, but
if PMC wants the mailing lists created in their namespace,
than I see no reason not to go that way.
-aaron
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 10:17 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
So incubator folks, what is the correct policy here?
Lenya is
On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 12:51 AM, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
One question - there were a number of thoughts and caveats raised
before and during the vote. Should we (can we?) put something
together to document exit criteria from the incubation process?
You should definitely document what you
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 11:47 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
If they are the product of another project, then the developer
would just download and build/install that other project.
Hmmm, so here start the problems. A Java project can have a lot of
dependencies, and making all developers dow
On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 11:08 AM, Paul Hammant wrote:
Brian, Aaron,
[ ..] The rule that I've always
followed WRT version control is that derived products are never placed
under VC--it's redundant.
Can we build on the incubator box ?
Yes, you may use the incubator box (aka daedalus) to buil
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 11:42 PM, Paul Hammant wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
Sorry to be a nag, but are these all just autogenerated from
javadoc? Surely javadoc output need not be in CVS.
-aaron
Stricktly speaking, there is no need at all for a xxx-site CVS module
for any Apache projects
Sorry to be a nag, but are these all just autogenerated from
javadoc? Surely javadoc output need not be in CVS.
-aaron
On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 04:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hammant 2003/03/15 16:33:22
Modified:
build/site/projects/altrmi/api/org/apache/altrmi/server/impl
On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 02:50 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Anyway, I'm curious: since I develop only java and I don't use other
languages since the universtity (so take this question with the same
grain of salt ;-) , what would have you thought could have been done
instead of putting t
I don't claim to be a Java expert, so take what I say with a grain
of salt, but why are jars being checked into CVS?
-aaron
On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 06:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
leif2003/03/14 18:36:31
Added: lib/optional excalibur-lifecycle-1.0.jar
Log:
Updated t
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 06:01 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
[..]
Making progress on getting infrastructural resources is always very
slow at Apache and probably always will be.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html
-aaron
--
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 07:11 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
[excellent checklist snipped]
- Who tracks down things in the status file?
incubator/projects/tapestry/STATUS
Anyone who posts a patch to this list or has commit access to that
respository.
As Incubator
- We need mor
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 11:29 PM, Paul Hammant wrote:
Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up
(though like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I
promise to answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
opportunities arise. I'm on the Av
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 03:05 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Once both of those are resolved I'll change that to a +1 not before.
While I agree that the incubator in its current form has been a
wasteful excercise. The incubation period itself proved useful in
that it exposed issues that I
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 02:18 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Anyway, Tapestry has *not* been incubated, at least not by the
Incubator. It has been followed by Dion and Andy (whom I thank BTW),
that are not Incubator PMCers. I don't see how something that we have
not done goes to our demer
ad to
send
a patch.
On 17.02.2003 15:47:15 Aaron Bannert wrote:
Send a patch! :)
-aaron
On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 06:40 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I wonder when this is finally going to be hammered into stone
somewhere
on the Apache website. Sorry, couldn't resist.
On 17.02.20
Send a patch! :)
-aaron
On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 06:40 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I wonder when this is finally going to be hammered into stone somewhere
on the Apache website. Sorry, couldn't resist.
On 17.02.2003 15:29:41 Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2003,
(Forwarding to the incubator list.)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul Hammant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:27:32 AM US/Pacific
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Incubator site update?
Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How does the incubator site get updated?
On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 07:58 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Index: BCELProxyGeneratorTestCase.java
===
/*
* Copyright (C) The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
*
* This software is published und
64 matches
Mail list logo
