Henk's scripting does that and much more.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:09 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> I thought that gpg does that.
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Dave Fisher
> wrote:
>
> > Regardless of what Jane User knows, and we have 200 million Jane Users of
> > Apache OpenOffice, I think i
The attachment stripping feature in ezmlm is configurable by the
infrastructure team on a per list basis. I believe the -x flag governs
that feature.
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:57 PM James Bognar
wrote:
> Since images are lost on apache emails, what have other teams done if they
> want to inclu
What exactly are we trying to achieve here? There is a record number of
podlings in incubation and the best ideas so far are to shame more labor
out of the people that are already overloaded. Sure that will work, as if
burnout wasn't already a problem for mentors.
What is the lesson for the podl
Continuing down the road of blaming each other for the problem is stupid.
Look the personnel is already ready, willing, and available to do the real
vetting.
All the IPMC has to do is recognize them and integrate them.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.
How many binding votes do you need at this point?
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM Pat Ferrel wrote:
> +1 non-binding
>
> Next release we could exclude the doc site. Do build files like .sbt
> require licenses? I suppose it can be done in comments. But again can we
> push to next release?
>
> Can
role. If they don’t, the extra burden falls on other IPMC members, and
> podlings have a crappy experience.
>
> I don’t think two votes per year is too much to ask. If you’re not up to
> it, resign from the IPMC.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 2017, at 10:15 AM,
How many binding votes do you lack?
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 3:40 AM Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> The third RC is placed before the Incubator and hoping to get through the
> door.
>
> Any takers?
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>
den falls on other IPMC members, and
> podlings have a crappy experience.
>
> I don’t think two votes per year is too much to ask. If you’re not up to
> it, resign from the IPMC.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >
>
The traditional response to this issue is to grow the ipmc to incorporate
more podling committers.
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:02 PM Julian Hyde wrote:
> I agree that lack of IPMC votes is a problem. I don’t think that lowering
> the bar to making a release is the solution.
>
> I wish that each IP
With regard to the second question I hope the ultimate decision still rests
with Greg. This idea is fairly new and some baby steps are in order before
opening the floodgates.
IMO
On Monday, November 7, 2016, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling bei
This saga jumped the shark right about the time Mary the sonnetor weighted
in.
On Thursday, November 26, 2015, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Sorry Jim. As an attempt to shut down a thread, this wasn't a very good
> one. Not a single poster in this thread has a problem with the word, or
> the concept of,
Thank you Mary, and welcome aboard! You are an inspiration to others!
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Mary the sonnetor <
marywantsalittlelamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And another thing..it has no names so I do have a right for legal issues
> and publication.
>
> inspirational laison
> On 22 Nov
Thank you Mary and welcome aboard! You are an inspiration
for others!
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Mary the sonnetor <
marywantsalittlelamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm am in the process of learning all this fascinating tech things. That's
> why I was looking at the different outputs. I'm so
Come on folks it's not cut and dry. Httpd uses both without fuss about
roles, trust, etc. This is a process issue much like the choice of version
control tool you select, it really is not a big deal.
On Wednesday, November 18, 2015, Dave Fisher wrote:
> I see the essence of what it means to be
Completely agreed Todd about the irrelevance of these ad hoc assessments
of something nobody actually questions.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:53AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
Subversion cut a release while in incubation on their old system.
Shouldn't pose a problem for others.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> Hopefully quick policy question here:
>
> Once a project is under proposal for incubation, what is the foundation
> policy on
IIRC you Roman were on the list of "undersigned" ;-).
It got shot down for many, many reasons.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance wit
I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice
document into a policy document. Rather, some people are finding it a
useful
guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be encouraged.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:35 PM, larry mccay wrote:
> Hi Caleb -
a project, and personally meets my
definition of "belongs on the PMC".
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Thanks Lenni. If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth,
> he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination problems.
>
e
> how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics (big,
> small, new, old) more frequently moving forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Lenni
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Thanks Chris. So what I'm saying is, instead of adop
half of
the PMC. I consider it a highly awkward situation when a Release Manager
does
not have a binding vote on their own damned release (well for a normal PMC).
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Thanks Chris. So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the positio
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Schaefer
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Subject:
their
own work.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything here,
> including past decisions.
> Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we try to
> move with near
> unanimous
people indicate a binding status on it.
That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really shouldn't
matter what roles people have
unless we need to be looking at a release.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "S
This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable of
considering anything.
Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC or the
community, all
of which requires some discussion over time about any position being
taken. I would consider
it unusual for the
Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the podling?
I certainly think you've done the right thing by raising your concerns here
and
asking for a sanity check.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz"
> wrote:
> >
>
tree.
The absence of inappropriate feedback is in fact a sign that we are not
gauging things such
as they actually are, but are projecting our own perceptions onto the
project.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The whole point of the ASF's archiving policy is to ens
anges that certainly can be worked out hours
after discovering the
problem and filing the ticket.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Look at what we don't see- signs of dysfunction. Even with this thread,
> with serious consequences for the podling,
> nobody is beha
s,
far from the presentation that discussions
are happening off-Apache-infra and tickets are being "shut down" without
public review.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The only thing I might recommend of the podling is to try to leave
> low-hanging fruit in jira u
.
I do share the concern that we have several elected committers that haven't
yet advanced to the ppmc level.
Perhaps there's not enough project-level mentoring (as opposed to IMPC
mentoring) going on to bring these newer people along.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
same.
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" >
> wrote:
> >
> > David,
> >
> > The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid
> evidence
> > to that effe
As Ted points out, so long as the prior github presence is effectively
mothballed I don't see any problem with leaving it up for the foreseeable
future.
The main concern of mine and the membership involves podlings making
active use of a github repo not under Apache's direct control. This doesn't
David,
The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid evidence
to that effect. Certainly not on a systematic level.
All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about repair-oriented
tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies.
I don't find credible evidence
; On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 08:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > On 11/02/2015 01:09 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable? Hard to
> tell
> > > what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
> >
>
> operate in this manner. Jira is used to focus discussion and ensure there
> is a record and an action item. ML discussion isn't discouraged, but it can
> be hard to follow multiple threads of discussion/resolution.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Joe
Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable? Hard to tell
what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Vinod Vavilapalli
wrote:
> Missed that part, that sounds really bad.
>
> +Vinod
>
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...
What we do here is practice open *development*. That means if it is a
foregone conclusion that some jira ticket gets opened with a patch already
cooked up for it, you're not doing it right. The entire development
process needs to be subject to public scrutiny, not just the end result.
On Mon, N
One of the concerns members are talking about with podlings on github
concerns their overall presence there. To be brief, we need to take a
closer look at any podlings that are using their own project on github
versus using their clone on the apache github project.
So that opens the question I no
Just looked over Bertrand's document and I must say while I had high
expectations Bertrand has managed to surpass them. That this is a
functional and itemized list of details is just perfect- even better that
there are citations and references along with it!
Excellent job Bertrand!
On Sat, Oct 1
e
focused collaboration would serve the org well. Docs are great, but they
don't replace the personal touch.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Joe Schaefer <
joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> That's certainly a reasonable approach, but it doesn't quite capture wh
y all that important, what is important is
that we have them.
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Joe Schaefer
wrote:
> ...Formally, that's all a working group needs to be- yet another mailing
> list
I
I apologize for the formatting, Y!'s html-only text munging is to blame.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:26 PM, Joe Schaefer
wrote:
To be specific, what I have in mind is something like
proposals@incubatordocs@incubatormentoring@incubatorgraduation@incubatorreleases@incu
To be specific, what I have in mind is something like
proposals@incubatordocs@incubatormentoring@incubatorgraduation@incubatorreleases@incubator
We probably don't need to start off with more subdivisions than that.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:06 PM, Joe Schaefer
wrote:
ulate conversations between people working on similar
subjects that don't want to burden this list with that sort of conversation.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:17 PM, Joe Schaefer
wrote:
Elsewhere in the org several ideas have been floated around regardinggeneral
reorgani
Elsewhere in the org several ideas have been floated around regardinggeneral
reorganization and reform. Things like possibly creating a newcommittee to
oversee inbound and outbound podlings, or perhaps having the IPMC form such a
subcommittee.
I mention these notions not because I support them,
ignore this
ignore please
ignore
testing dmarc
ignore this internal test
ignore this message, it's for testing
As a practical matter the tlp migration scripts seed the
committer group from the list in asf-authorization for svn.
The PMC is taken directly from the resolution, but if there
is no corresponding group in svn (say UCB applies to
the project) then the PMC chair has to seed the committer
group thems
See http://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/scaling_down_the_cms_to
for today's discussion of the Thrift migration to the CMS.
Basically there was a support gap for moderately-sized sites
that has now been filled with the latest changes to the cms
build libs.
HTH
It doesn't. People were just being pedantic
and untrusting of podling participants. Committers
have accounts, not formal standing in the org. There
is absolutely no reason for the IPMC to inject itself
in a podling election of a new committer, so let's just
leave oversight over the voting proces
Now that things have settled down a bit,
I'd like to talk about some of the things
I'm looking for out of the ombudsman post.
1) proactively solicits opinions of exiting podlings
about their experiences in the form of interviews
and surveys.
2) make anonymized results of (1) available to th
ng we should commit to in a "Bill of Rights".
- Original Message -
> From: Ross Gardler
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights
>
> Joe, this is (in gene
He said majority, not everybody ant. Try a little harder to
understand the written words instead of needing to interject
your dissonant 2 cents and things will improve around here.
Anyway the point is that when you see multiple changes to an
in-progress VOTE on a proposal, it suggests not that we
discretely. Let their report be
> a private addition for the board report.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> Cmon folks, all we're looking for is an email alias and
>> a descriptive title. That's not
Cmon folks, all we're looking for is an email alias and
a descriptive title. That's not *overhead* any more than
Greg's novel position as Vice Chair is *overhead* to the
board. A title doesn't an officer make, there is no need
to imbue Incubator Ombudsman with any power whatsoever,
not even the p
- Original Message -
> From: Marvin Humphrey
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial
> committer?
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> For me th
>
> From: Roman Shaposhnik
>To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
>Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 3:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights
>
>
>On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> So isn&#
- Original Message -
> From: Roman Shaposhnik
> To: Joseph Schaefer
> Cc: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Joseph Schaefer
> wrote:
>> The typical escalation path is ei
Baby steps- let's see how the role evolves here in the incubator
before trying to do something foundation-wide. At this point it's
still not clear that the role is even desirable by the rest of the
IPMC.
- Original Message -
> From: Alan Cabrera
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
Yeah I get that, but I'm wondering what sort of power we'd
impart to the position besides information gathering. It
might make an interesting complementary position to the
chair that's more directly focused on the Incubator as it
presents itself to podlings, which is something we recently
discusse
Since I realize that most of you can't be
bothered to look at the wiki page I created ;-),
I'll go ahead and post the current content
here for commentary. I hope the bulk of it
is non-controversial, though some of it may
not belong on the page...
Ok Alan I'm done hacking on the page for now.
Have at it folks, if you so choose.
>
> From: Apache Wiki
>To: Apache Wiki
>Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:52 PM
>Subject: [Incubator Wiki] Update of "PodlingBillOfRights" by JoeSchaefer
>
>
>Dear Wiki user,
>
>Y
I'll let it stew for a coupla days before
I start charging in, but yeah something
along these lines will surely address the
palpable feeling of disempowerment we too
often dish out.
>
> From: Alan Cabrera
>To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Sc
What we really need for podlings is a "bill of
rights" towards what they can expect of their
mentors, because too few of them actually are
willing to question the participation of the
people who signed up to mentor them and that's
not helping anybody.
>
> From: Al
I'm with Alan on our penchant to solve people
problems with reorganization. We lack tangible
means of measuring and recognizing that actual
oversight is happening in these podlings. And
by that I mean that somebody is actually following
along as the project develops and providing them
with requis
It'd help to know concretely what is meant
by a "probationary TLP", particularly what
is different about it from normal incubation.
I am not looking for yet another email discussion,
but an URL to a wiki page would be nice.
>
> From: Ross Gardler
>To: general@inc
Yes your logic is flawed- what you are actually
arguing for is majority voting not consensus voting,
and bringing the criterion down from 100% to
75% only helps mitigate your concerns.
As Doug points out, votes are structured away
from the status quo- we don't ever vote to
continue on with previ
Can we pretty-please do this *before* resources
are requested, just to save us poor infra saps
the trouble of renaming everything?
>
> From: Jakob Homan
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Ivory - Ha
That's not your role as chair to be personally
concerned about a project release- that's the
group's responsibility. You should confine
your concerns to our efficacy and ability to
carry out the role of an IPMC member properly.
IOW relax, the outcome isn't going to sink the
org one way or anothe
t; feedback in other ways than simply
voting against a release, and that's what I'm
pointing out here.
- Original Message -
> From: Alex Harui
> To: Joe Schaefer ; "general@incubator.apache.org"
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 12:46 PM
se minor issues on their behalf in a
generic way.
>
> From: Alex Harui
>To: "general@incubator.apache.org" ; Joe
>Schaefer
>Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 12:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release revie
tor releases is IMO worthwhile.
>
> From: Sergio Fernández
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Cc: Joe Schaefer
>Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews
>
>Joe,
&
given them.
>
> From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
>To: "general@incubator.apache.org" ; Joe
>Schaefer
>Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:44 PM
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews
>
>Totally agree, Joe.
>
>Cheers,
>Ch
nding vote on a release.
>
> From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
>To: "general@incubator.apache.org" ; Joe
>Schaefer
>Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release revi
One of my long time pet peeves with how we
PMC members participate in vetting releases
is our penchant for focusing too much on the
policies surrounding license and notice info.
I really think our exclusive focus on things
that really don't pose any organizational risk
to either the org nor the pro
May have simply been to indicate that
there's new content in the report that
needs to be processed by mentors. I'm
not worried about it personally.
>
> From: Benson Margulies
>To: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org; "general@incubator.apache.org"
>
>Sent: T
positive ways; ie the best documents wear well over time.
HTH
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 20, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Shane actually wrote that page but I still hate the exclusionary draft label
> he picked up from rbd.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 19,
Shane actually wrote that page but I still hate the exclusionary draft label he
picked up from rbd.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> That's the whole problem with Robert's labels, they scare people away from
> working on th
Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> That's just RBD's signature boilerplate for a document he likely started.
>> Feel free to remove it if you think it detracts from the document.
>>
>
> I leave the labeli
That's just RBD's signature boilerplate for a document he likely started. Feel
free to remove it if you think it detracts from the document.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>> Ross Gardle
re; as
> always there is a spectrum of opinion and experience. I started this
> thread because I thought that a vote thread was not the best place to
> open the conversation with a particular podling about starting to
> distinguish C from PPMC.
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Jo
pinion and experience. I started this
> thread because I thought that a vote thread was not the best place to
> open the conversation with a particular podling about starting to
> distinguish C from PPMC.
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>
Marvin didn't even make his full point about Lucy- the fact is that all Apache
committers have commit to Lucy. Putting them all on the pmc would be nuts in
an entirely different way!
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:50 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
wrote:
> Is it a "fight" to sta
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:50 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
wrote:
> Is it a "fight" to state an opinion, when one has already been stated,
> Marvin? C'mon now.
> Fair's fair, you already got yours out so I have every right to get mine
> out.
>
> To your point of we shouldn'
The thing to avoid is to wind up with a significant number of active
contributors on a project who are not on the pmc. Separating committers from
pmc members can be a symptom but it's manageable under the right conditions.
Note committers aren't the only class of contributors that projects mig
pache.org; Joe Schaefer
>Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 6:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Incubator report reminders sent for Dec 2012
>
>Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> The hdt-dev@ list is the wrong address, which
>> explains why the others are missing: reminders.pl
>> is not expecting
The hdt-dev@ list is the wrong address, which
explains why the others are missing: reminders.pl
is not expecting the new mailing list pattern.
>
> From: David Crossley
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 4:54 PM
>Subject: Re: Incu
No no no. It's migrating from git to svn that
we don't know how to do, going the other way
is largely trivial with git-svn.
>
> From: Christian Grobmeier
>To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
>Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 3:48 PM
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Ap
+1
>
> From: Andrea Pescetti
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:00 PM
>Subject: [VOTE] Recommend to the Board to establish the Apache OpenOffice
>Project
>
>Seeing no objections to my last message, and keeping into account
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> 1 http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=upayavira&w=all&s=int&referer_searched=1
>> 2 http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/Upayavira
>> 3 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dh-upayavira/1b/5a3/7a6
>>
>>
>>
>&
all&s=int&referer_searched=1
>2 http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/Upayavira
>3 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dh-upayavira/1b/5a3/7a6
>
>
>
>On 2 October 2012 10:13, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> No, just like Upayavira doe
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
Many projects in a similar situation ship a "deps"
package that contains dependencies and distribute
those from the mirrors.
HTH
>
> From: Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 2:42 PM
>Subject: downloadi
Which better agrees with written policy anyway- the sigs
are part of the release package to be voted on and voted on
by the PMC, so even tho it constitutes individual sigs
those sigs (well at least the RM's sig) are PMC-approved.
- Original Message -
> From: Greg Stein
> To: general@in
- Original Message -
> From: Benson Margulies
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
>
> Jim,
>
> Two points:
>
> 1: you skip over the liability question. Is Bill legally expose
- Original Message -
> From: Dave Fisher
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> AO
1 - 100 of 449 matches
Mail list logo
