Moving xmlbeanscxx to dormant status (was [REPORT] XMLBeans May 2007)

request to remove the QName and NamespaceContext classes from the xmlbeans jar. xmlbeansc++ subproject: XMLBeans PMC and subproject mentor Cliff Schmidt recommended in the last board report to close the subproject due to lack of interest from committers and

Re: all licenses go into the LICENSE file (was: Re: [VOTE] approve release of OpenJPA 0.9.7)

On 4/30/07, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 25, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Wednesday 25 April 2007 11:55, Patrick Linskey wrote: >>> * OpenJPA includes software developed by the SERP project >>> Copyright (c) 2002-2006, A. Abram White. All rights reserved. >>>

[RESULT][VOTE] Add Kevin Smith as a Qpid Committer

The Qpid PPMC already passed their vote in favor of making Kevin a committer, but this email is to indicate that the vote is now official with the following three +1s from Incubator PMC members (and no other IPMC votes): Paul Fremantle William Rowe Cliff Schmidt Congratulations, Kevin. I will

[RESULT][VOTE] Add Rupert Smith as a Qpid Committer

The Qpid PPMC already passed their vote in favor of making Rupert a committer, but this email is to indicate that the vote is now official with the following three +1s from Incubator PMC members (and no other IPMC votes): Paul Fremantle William Rowe Cliff Schmidt Congratulations, Rupert. I

[RESULT] [VOTE] Add Tomas Restrepo as a Qpid Committer

The Qpid PPMC already passed their vote in favor of making Tomas a committer, but this email is to indicate that the vote is now official with the following three +1s from Incubator PMC members (and no other IPMC votes): Paul Fremantle William Rowe Cliff Schmidt Congratulations, Tomas. I will

Re: Adding new committers process

On 4/6/07, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, I think that has cleared things up a bit for me I'll send out these requests that I've been sitting on for a few weeks now as we need to get the accounts set up for our new committers. Just as it appeared this subject was cleared up, Noel

Re: [RESULT] Add Rupert Smith as a Qpid Committer

On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All, This vote closed on Tuesday night and the result is as follows: Votes Cast: 9+ 0- Thus, Rupert Smith should now be created as a committer on the Qpid project. Although this vote closed several weeks ago, I'm adding my +1 as the me

Re: [RESULT] Add Kevin Smith as a Qpid Committer

On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All, This vote closed on Tuesday night and the result is as follows: Votes Cast: 6+ 0- Thus, Kevin Smith should now be created as a committer on the Qpid project. Although this vote closed several weeks ago, I'm adding my +1 as the men

Re: [RESULT] Add Tomas Restrepo as a Qpid Committer

On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All, This vote closed on Tuesday night and the result is as follows: Votes Cast: 9+ 0- Thus, Tomas Restrepo should now be created as a committer on the Qpid project. Although this vote closed several weeks ago, I'm adding my +1 as one

Re: [VOTE] Approve release of SCA specification APIs by Tuscany project

On 3/15/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/13/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0- > incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the OSOA > specification V1.0: > http://mail-archives.apache.o

Re: [RESULT] Add Rupert Smith as a Qpid Committer

On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thus, Rupert Smith should now be created as a committer on the Qpid project. Cliff - is this something you can action from a practical perspective please ? If I can do it please let me know. Just forwarded an old email I sent to qpid-dev

Re: Contents of NOTICE file

The only third-party notices that should be inserted in the NOTICE file are ones that are explicitly required by a necessary license. From what you've described below, it doesn't sound like you a license for Libxml is necessary. Cliff On 3/15/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We ar

Re: [RESULT] was: [VOTE] [RETRY] Release of Apache XAP 0.3.0

On 3/6/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/25/07, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > Congrats on the getting the vote passed and the release out. > > I'd like to re-iterate my question: besides Cliff, where are your > other two mentors? i've been unwell (but i'

Re: [VOTE] [RETRY] Release of Apache XAP 0.3.0

On 2/14/07, Bob Buffone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Incubator, Several issues were found with the previous release files and have been resolved: 1.) NOTICE file contained a list of the Committers - Issue Raiser: William A. Rowe, Jr. - Resolution: List of committers has been removed from

Re: podling BIS notifications

On 2/20/07, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BIS notices have to be made if a product contains encryption functionality controlled by the EAR's 5D002 classification, or is specifically designed to make use of a 5D002 classified item (as would the case if the source code contains calls t

Board response to January Incubator PMC Report

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Incubator PMC, On behalf of the Board, I want to thank you for the latest status report. There was one part of the report we would like to follow-up on: The report on Heraldry mentions a "single l

Re: [VOTE] Release Qpid M1

On 12/6/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Concern: Was there any resolution on the AMQP licensing terms (1) in relation to making releases? I think it is okay, but how it fits into the current draft guidelines (2) I am unsure. I think Cliff voted for this, so I suspect it is okay.

Including snapshot dependencies from other ASF projects

The Qpid community has been debating whether or not they should include an unreleased snapshot version of MINA within their upcoming Qpid release, and whether they would even be allowed to do so by "Apache rules". The committers want to do the right thing and have asked their mentors for advice.

Re: [DISCUSS] incubator voting process

On 11/10/06, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If we go the first route, then we should treat this list as an announcements list. Results of votes for releases and graduation are posted here, and incubator PMC members will be given 72 hours to raise an issue. I've been advising podlings with

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Harmony to TLP status (pending board approval)

On 10/24/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, I am asking for a vote of the Incubator on graduation of Harmony that is conditional on the board's approval of a TLP for that purpose. This way we don't have to vote again after the board meeting on Wednesday (or whenever the board c

Re: Re: Policy on Initial Committership

On 10/6/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely editable Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward? +1, although I think a Wiki still *should* work if the established etiquette was not to make edits to someone else's pro

Qpid mailing lists

The Qpid project (formerly known as Blaze and Glasgow) mailing lists are now set up. Please subscribe to the dev list if you are interested in following or participating in the project. A commits list is also set up for those wanting to track changes to the repository. Here's the info: qpid-dev

[RESULT] [VOTE] Glasgow accepted for incubation

concerns. I suggest they hold off on requesting project resources if the currently-proposed name appears to be getting traction; otherwise, just pick anything without a registered software trademark to get the project started and debate the name during incubation. Cliff On 8/10/06, Cliff Schmidt

Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator

fficially vote. Binding +/-0 Bill Binding -1s: Garrett, Brian Non-binding +1: Matthias, Craig Russell, Coach, Kim, Adi Spec process concerns (without voting): Mads, Leo Name concerns: Danny (non-binding -1), Rich (no vote) On 8/3/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I beli

Re: Too many licenses? Was: [vote] Accept Glasgow

On 8/7/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8/7/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not complicated, folks. ASF projects consist of individuals. Adding > company affiliations after each of the initial committers names suggests, to > some, that the day they

Re: Project Naming (was Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator)

On 8/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMO the reason this naming debate hasn't been settled is because of the way in which the change from Blaze to Glasgow was achieved: it was done privately and the result was announced here. hmm...sounds like we should have some docs that

Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator

On 8/4/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8/4/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > nor would I, as a mentor, ever allow any project to move through > incubation without actively working to create such a community. I have no doubt that this is the c

Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator

On 8/4/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8/4/06, J Aaron Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/3/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote: > > > I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding). > > > > > I very much a

Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator

to voting: What is the possible (estimated) minimum implementation footprint (in term of kilobytes or megabytes) to support AMQP network wire-level protocol? I am asking this thinking of the possibility of using AMQP protocol in mobile applications such as J2ME. ---Coach Wei > -Original Message-

Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator

to voting: What is the possible (estimated) minimum implementation footprint (in term of kilobytes or megabytes) to support AMQP network wire-level protocol? I am asking this thinking of the possibility of using AMQP protocol in mobile applications such as J2ME. ---Coach Wei > -Original Message-

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name collision with the old Sun codename for their JavaBeans Activiation Framework (see http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GlasgowProposal?action=diff&rev2=2&rev1=1). I

[VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator

tephen Shaw (JPMC) * Gordon Sim (Red Hat) * James Strachan (LogicBlaze) * Manik Surtani (Red Hat) * Paul Taylor (IONA) * Carl Trieloff (Red Hat) * Kim van der Riet (Red Hat) * Steve Vinoski (IONA) * Sergey Yedrikov (IONA) === APACHE SPONSOR === The Glasgow team will make the submission to t

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

Brian, As the Champion for this proposal, I'd like to move this on to a vote. I just read all the related posts one more time, and I believe your concern below is the only one that hasn't been directly addressed (if I'm wrong about this, someone speak up). So, I want to offer my thoughts on it a

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

On 8/1/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote: >> Brian, >> >> Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private >> channels, >> that said we are in >> the process

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

On 8/1/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Also, the question from my email before last is still unanswered: can the spec be forked if the process becomes an insurmountable obstacle for the Glasgow project? I realize this is really based on the terms in the license, but not being a l

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? - I think Glasgow is fine since it appears not to conflict with any registered software marks. I don't think we need to be worried about the university reference, and we obviously have several projects already named for cities. I'm also

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

On 7/20/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project can cause a previously closed "standard" to be forced into the open or be supplanted. +1 In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks in the USPTO with 3

Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

On 7/19/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was assuming that standard bodies dictate the license to a large extent, and given that those have caused trouble in the past the idea of a new project with that still undefined is a worry. The term "standards body" is a mental flag :) I ask

Re: [VOTE] CeltiXfire Project Proposal

On 7/12/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, There has been plenty of discussion around the CeltiXfire proposal, we feel that all the issues forwarded have been addressed, and we would now like to officially propose CeltiXfire to the Incubator for consideration. The proposal can be f

Re: [doc] Roles and Responsibilities Update Needed [WAS Re: Mentors - the more, the merrier?]

On 7/14/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/14/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kenneth Tam wrote: > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html > > > "A Mentor is a role undertaken by a permanent member of the Apache > > Soft

Re: Mentors - the more, the merrier? [WAS Re: [VOTE] Accept Heraldry into the Incubator]

On 7/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Cliff Schmidt wrote: > It also allows this mentor to demonstrate the role of a chair How hard is it to understand that the PMC Chair has no role (slight hyperbole)? Then I guess I would have to ask you, "how hard is it to u

Re: Mentors - the more, the merrier? [WAS Re: [VOTE] Accept Heraldry into the Incubator]

On 7/13/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe you'd start with one of the mentors as chair then, maybe half way through incubation, start grooming a new ppmc chair from within the project. +1 This addresses my concern about formally identifying the mentor who is taking the key resp

Re: Mentors - the more, the merrier? [WAS Re: [VOTE] Accept Heraldry into the Incubator]

On 7/12/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/11/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (And I'll note now that I'm interested in participating, although can't > commit the time to be a mentor right now.) > this seems like a good opportunity to reintroduce an exi

Re: [doc] IRC guidelines (was Re: Extensible Ajax Platform (XAP) Project Update)

On 7/11/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > below) and other recent threads, here's what I would propose also be > doc'd: > > "IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g. > Q&A between available committers and interested users/contributors), > although such

[doc] IRC guidelines (was Re: Extensible Ajax Platform (XAP) Project Update)

More explicit documentation is usually a good thing, and having clear docs stating that decisions must only take place on the mailing lists is no exception...however, that's not really what this thread was about. Most of this thread has been about what non-decision-making role should IRC play, if

Re: Extensible Ajax Platform (XAP) Project Update

On 7/11/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This thread may be dead/resolved, in which case just ignore me. It was only "mostly-dead"...but you've raised some good points that I agree with. Cliff Schmidt wrote: > On 6/23/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PR

Re: [VOTE] Accept Heraldry into the Incubator

On 7/10/06, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like to call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator. +1 Cliff ---

Re: Extensible Ajax Platform (XAP) Project Update

On 6/23/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The use of e-mail as the primary means for communication is part of ASF policy and philosophy, and we can certainly learn lessons from projects that have gone against it. IRC tends to breed a more closed, albeit arguably more integrated, com

Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)

On 6/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/7/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That was my plan as well; so I'm pretty flexible. I guess I'd > probably prefer not to schedule anything formal on Monday morning, > since some folks may

Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)

On 6/7/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/7/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/6/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, let me put it this way: I'm committed to sit at a table for at > > least

Re: [RESULT] Request to release (revised) Tuscany M1

yes -- it's true that the policy is still only proposed and that the proposed policy allows for a transition/evaluation period to see the impact of some of the requirements. I would not suggest that you remove something from the release just because it's under the NPL. However, you should make s

[VOTE][RESULT] XAP Proposal PASSED

can subscribe. Cliff On May 18, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: Since this project was proposed a couple weeks ago, it now has a champion, three mentors, and has further diversified its initial committership. Additional details about the project have been discussed on this list, and

Re: Who is attending ApacheconEU

On 5/18/06, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: They're keen to move this into open-source and I was wondering if any apache-ites would be available at apacheconEU for me to talk to about it and possibly to introduce these guys to. If you're interested, Lars Eilebrecht and I will be giving t

[VOTE] XAP (Extensible Ajax Platform) Proposal (was XAP (Extensible Ajax Platform) Proposal)

ersion repository * https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/xap 3.3 Jira * xap 4. Identify the initial set of committers: * Atsuko Pien * Scott Boyd * Robert Buffone * Cliff Schmidt * Coach Wei * James Margaris * Michael Turyn * Jonathan Levin * Peter Eacm

Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)

On 4/24/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: really need to try to find time to get to grips with the documentation on the foundation and incubator sites. been thinking about making this a goal of mine for infrathon/hackthon in dublin (though sorting out my flights is another job

Re: VOTE: Release Roller 2.2-incubating

On 4/30/06, David Crossley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Craig McClanahan wrote: > David M Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >OK, so Cliff says we need to have copyright notices on all files > >before we can release 2.2 and that we should make the release on > >Apache infrastructure this time

Re: licensing issues in clucene

On 4/29/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Saturday 29 April 2006 02:57, Ben van Klinken wrote: > For historical reasons, CLucene is dual licensed as Apache 2.0 license > or LGPL. As I understand it, the apache license is currently is not > compatible with GPL projects and therefore

Re: VOTE: Release Roller 2.2-incubating

-1 until the following is corrected: I see a couple problems with what I've just downloaded at http://people.apache.org/~snoopdave/roller-2.2-rc/: 1. There's no NOTICE file. 2. Although there is clear mention of the LGPL components in the README (which isn't required), I don't see anything in the

Re: Mistaken copyrights

On 4/5/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the WebWork2 podling, we have several files that contain a copyright > header naming the file as belonging to the ePlus corporation. Turns out, > this copyright was mistakenly applied due a developer's mistaken IDEA > configuration, which was se

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Jackrabbit to TLP status (pending board approval)

On 3/12/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Apache Jackrabbit committers have voted to request graduation > from the Incubator as a TLP. > Please send in your +1/0/-1 to approve/abstain/disapprove. +1 Cliff -

Re: Is the incubator out of control?

On 12/21/05, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Leung wrote: > > > > On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > > >> > >>> I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly > >>> low bar for access to the Apache brand name > >> > >> And we require disclaimers and

Re: AJAX Toolkit Framework Proposal

On 12/20/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike, > > Some one comes to ASF with a proposal, typically we give it our full > consideration. I can understand why cliff asked about eclipse option > (Beehive/Eclipse stuff!), Actually, I had two purposes behind my question. One was to

Re: AJAX Toolkit Framework Proposal

Adam, Can you tell me if you considered proposing this to the Eclipse Foundation? Since this project appears to have far stronger dependencies on Eclipse Foundation projects rather than anything from Apache, can you tell me why you think bringing this project here is likely to help you build a st

Re: [VOTE] @domain for Incubator mailing lists

On 12/17/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please vote on the following: > > New mailing lists should be created under the > @incubator.apache.org domain, just as all of > the other project resources, e.g., the web > site and SVN subtree. -0, and here's why: - I think ident

Re: New project

This list is one place to submit proposals, but see the Incubator Process document for more details: see http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html#Establishment. Cliff On 11/11/05, Federico Paparoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi i would like to suggest a new project for t

Re: [VOTE] Proposal for Tobago, an Apache MyFaces subproject

On 9/5/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/6/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I didn't argument against using the incubator infrastructure. > > > > Nobody seemed too interested here, though (in contradiction to the > > MyFaces community, who was very intereste

Re: a few steps before approving a project

Thanks, Dims -- I really appreciate the response! Comments and responses to your questions below. Cliff On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please see below: > > On 8/31/05, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - change the Incubator PM

Re: a few steps before approving a project

Dims, With all due respect for your frustration and its expression (I'm actually not being sarcastic), could you also respond to the subject of this thread and possibly the thoughts that started it? I was really hoping this could remain a discussion of the pros and cons of things along those line

Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)

(renaming the subject to try to keep the past flames and future discussions somewhat separate) On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There was ONLY one press release...that was vetted by the [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please > complain to the folks there. Actually, there were at leas

Re: a few steps before approving a project

On 9/1/05, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --On September 1, 2005 10:50:20 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If the answer to one or more of the questions was not simply "yes", > > then there might be another

Re: a few steps before approving a project

Remember that putting "code" through incubation (as opposed to a "community") can be a really fast process -- as fast as someone can give a solid account to the Incubator PMC of the audit trail of the code. But, yes -- it sounds like such a thing probably should have been brought through the Incub

Re: [VOTE] Proposal for Tobago, an Apache MyFaces subproject

Yes, but don't take my personal thoughts/proposals to be policy. Matthias is right that the current policy does not require an Incubator PMC vote. Cliff On 8/31/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, > > as Cliff has just pointed out, that should not be enough, at least in >

Re: a few steps before approving a project

On 8/31/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:43 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > The Incubator's charter from the board says: > > > > > > RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby i

Re: a few steps before approving a project

On 8/31/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:01 -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote: > > BTW, the XMLBeans PMC just voted to add a single member to the PMC, > > and even that required a 72-hour wait after getting Board > > acknowledge

a few steps before approving a project

I'd like to suggest a few changes to the process of approving new project proposals. The purpose of these changes would be to allow the ASF to consider big picture issues related to the acceptance of new projects into the Incubator, which isn't as likely to happen with our current set of rules whe

Re: Incubating Project Releases (was Re: JDO2 Snapshots)

On 8/16/05, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cliff Schmidt wrote: > > On 8/10/05, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Cliff Schmidt wrote: > >> > >>>On 8/8/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > &g

Re: Incubating Project Releases (was Re: JDO2 Snapshots)

On 8/10/05, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cliff Schmidt wrote: > > On 8/8/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>I don't mind an incubating project making verifiable releases with > >>proper voting and the appropriate disc

Incubating Project Releases (was Re: JDO2 Snapshots)

On 8/8/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't mind an incubating project making verifiable releases with > proper voting and the appropriate disclaimers. I completely agree, and I believe this is exactly what projects want to do. Are there any PMC members who disagree with Roy's

Re: JDO2 Snapshots

On 8/7/05, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/7/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please note that although we have attempted to establish a balanced policy, > > it is not our goal to have widespread adoption of projects that are still in > > the Incubator. We wa

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Graduate Derby as sub-project of Apache DB

On 7/25/05, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > > > So please vote on graduating Derby to a sub-project of Apache DB. > > Passed with eleven (11) +1 votes (including one ++1 vote :-) > > Three (3) members of the Incubator PMC voted +1 (Noel, Geir, Ro

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP

On 7/18/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Noel, > Cliff is driving the pmc selection/vp recommendation process. > > Cliff, > Could you please respond? Sure -- I'll follow up my earlier thread on the beehive ppmc list re: board resolution and VP candidate. Cliff > > thanks, > di

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP

On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Simon Kitching wrote: Yes the current discussion on legal-discuss is wrt wss4j, but the question for beehive was more general: are there any patents that have been explicitly granted for the use of Beehive? This is not how the question should be asked. The questio

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Incubator PMC, > > I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see > the latest status at: > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html +1 - - The Beehiv

XMLBeans PMC has voted to sponsor xmlbeanscxx

l-xmlbeanscxx > > (3.3) Bugzilla > > xml xmlbeanscxx > > (4.0) identify the initial set of committers > > This is a preliminary list that will be updated with volunteer members. > > Tim Triemstra (TimT @ RogueWave dot-com) > John Hinke (Hinke @ RogueWave dot-com) >

Re: releasing from incubator? -- was: Re: a beehive release and the JSR 181 TCK issue

On 6/11/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Richard Feit wrote: > > This is just a case where we need all the input we can get. > > We'll see if we can get some additional mentoring for you. I believe that > we'll have another volunteer to also spend time helping beehive along. :-)

Re: releasing from incubator? -- was: Re: a beehive release and the JSR 181 TCK issue

On 6/8/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW, versioning schemes such as: > > M.mQB > > where M == major, m == minor, Q in [D:Development, A:Alpha, B:Beta, > R:Release], and B == Build# encode the release type. I supposed that 1.0m1 > represents a milestone. > > In any event, I

Re: releasing from incubator? -- was: Re: a beehive release and the JSR 181 TCK issue

On 6/7/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It just doesn't make sense to me to tell a community that believes it has >> a "1.0" quality product that they have to call it a "test snapshot". > > Demo? Technology preview? Milestone? Happy Meal? All of those terms (or at least the fi

Re: releasing from incubator? -- was: Re: a beehive release and the JSR 181 TCK issue

On 6/7/05, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Exit+Requirements > > > Note: incubator projects are not permitted to issue an official Release. > Test snapshots (however good the quality) and Release plans are OK

Re: releasing from incubator? -- was: Re: a beehive release and the JSR 181 TCK issue

Here is my opinion on the whole release issue, which has not changed in 18 months since the first big discussion of releases and incubation branding. Full Disclosure: While this is my opinion as a member of the Incubator PMC, it is not necessarily the consensus of the PMC. In addition, I was onc

Re: [POLL] Apollo, Hermes, Muse

On 5/25/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not on the incubator PMC .. but, if I may, do these projects meet > the min. of 3 "other" committers requirement? dims, After a second reading, I see how Sajiva and I could have different interpretations of your question. I assume

Re: [POLL] Apollo, Hermes, Muse

Sounds good to me, knowing that you (as the mentor) approve of the release, and assuming the incubation release branding guidelines are being followed. Thanks for the note. I think some prefer to see votes for releases done on this list, but I'm personally fine with a note like this and the actua

Re: STDCXX voting summary

I also didn't vote, but would vote +1. Maybe I'm too much of a stickler for process, but I was waiting for a [VOTE] email to follow-up on the "Proposal" thread. Although I realize it's not uncommon for a proposal thread to end up looking a lot like a bunch of votes. Cliff On 5/19/05, Heidi Buel

Re: Proposal for STDCXX

Heidi, This looks great. A few notes/questions inline below. Cliff On 5/13/05, Heidi Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library > Rogue Wave Software will jump start this project by contributing the > commercial C++ Standard Library

Re: Incubator - Sandbox

On 5/13/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 13, 2005, at 3:46 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote: > > The problem is that many components for JSF are developed outside of > > Apache, some by small independent developers, some at sourceforge, > > some in large corporations, and we

Re: PROPOSAL : Apache Harmony - J2SE 5 Project

On 5/6/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Incubator PMC : > > We, the sponsoring members listed below, ask that you accept the > following proposal for a new project at Apache, an effort centered > around architecting and implementing J2SE 5. +1 Cliff -

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Derby from the incubator

On 4/22/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The three independent committers rule is an absolute minimum > based on the legal fact that US employees are required to be > loyal to their full-time employer *even* when we know the people > involved are beyond question, independently minde

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Derby from the incubator

On 4/22/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe we should look for an additional metric for community health and > diversity for next time. It could be in addition to the "rule of 3", > but I think this example shows where we can improve things to help > ensure healthy communiti

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Derby from the incubator

On 4/18/05, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > > Wouldn't "how can we increase the number of new developers on Derby while > > still in incubation" a better question to ask? > > I think only if the answer to 'do

Re: Prepping for Derby graduation vote

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:44:40 -0500, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cliff Schmidt wrote: > > the committer diversity issue has been raised as an issue by > > at least a couple folks. While it looks like they meet the > > requirement to have committers from

Re: Prepping for Derby graduation vote

It sounds like people involved with the project are happy with the user community and the process being followed by the Derby committers, and it's great they've added a committer since starting Incubation. However, the committer diversity issue has been raised as an issue by at least a couple folk

  1   2   >