On 21/03/2015 19:24, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote:
If in stead of the veto possibility the simple majority rule was at play,
it might have been so that fewer project would have reported consecutively
that no new people were onboarded
A lack of new people on-boarded does not
Using an alternative approach would not make any difference
It is a fundamental bug in Windows memory mapped files that means that a
JVM can never guarantee to completely release memory mapped files while
the JVM is alive.
Andy has posted this many times on threads about TDB on Windows in the
be displayed and what info to include. I'm
not saying you should open up ye olde MS Paint and draw something, but
some sort of visual idea would be nice.
With regards,
Daniel.
On 2015-03-03 12:44, Rob Vesse wrote:
Daniel
This is really cool
Quick question - how do we correct errors in the release data
Daniel
This is really cool
Quick question - how do we correct errors in the release data? I just
went through and added all the releases for the PMC of which I am a member
and realised I made a typo in the version number for one of our releases.
Where do I go to correct this?
Also it would be
Uli
Just did a quick run through for the Jena project, I found we had a bunch
of things labelled as gsoc but not as gsoc2015
In general there seems to be lots of open issues in JIRA which are
labelled gsoc and not labelled gsoc2015
http://s.apache.org/open-gsoc-not-2015
There are a few
On 03/02/2015 01:11, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
We should really make that clear to people, I strongly believe the general
opinion is non-project talks are not welcome. I base this on the fact
that
a number of talks for Denver and Budapest was rejected for being too
company like.
Having been
On 15/01/2015 11:33, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Rob Vesse rve...@dotnetrdf.org wrote:
...
I think the LC50 is actually correct but could perhaps be phrased
better...
I've used your suggestion, thanks!
Great
QU30:
Agreed, some
LC50:
I think the LC50 is actually correct but could perhaps be phrased better
My understanding was that the ASF owns the copyright for the collective
work of the project I.e. releases. As Benson notes contributors retain
copyright on their contributions but grant the ASF a perpetual license to
/2014 06:36 AM, Rob Vesse wrote:
Does anyone have an attendance figures for last weeks ApacheCon EU
since I
ideally need to include it in my conference trip report?
Also one of the conference volunteers mentioned in passing that they
were
counting attendees in individual sessions. If they were
Does anyone have an attendance figures for last weeks ApacheCon EU since I
ideally need to include it in my conference trip report?
Also one of the conference volunteers mentioned in passing that they were
counting attendees in individual sessions. If they were is this data going
to be collated
jan
Comments inline:
On 25/11/2014 14:06, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 25 November 2014 at 12:36, Rob Vesse rve...@dotnetrdf.org wrote:
Does anyone have an attendance figures for last weeks ApacheCon EU
since I
ideally need to include it in my conference trip report?
The last number I
Kay -
Generally any interested Apache committer can ask to be added to the
reviewers group for ApacheCon events in the Linux Foundation CFP system.
You simply need to drop an email here/to Rich offering to help. If you've
done reviewing for the previous two LF organised events then in principal
A practical example of a technical veto I've seen was when we added some
new optimisations that interacted badly with a pre-existing API in some
rare corner cases.
This actually went into a release and it wasn't until a particularly vocal
community member got round to upgrading that we became
Pierre
Not unless one/more of those contributors is themselves a Member/Officer
of the ASF - see Sectopn 4.1 of the Bylaws
(http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#4.1) which states the following:
To be eligible for membership, a person or entity must be nominated by a
current member of the
I took a first pass at categorising the talks that would fall under the
Linked Data category
Andy Sergio who are promoting that track will need to review and make
sure I haven't missed/miscategorized anything
Rob
On 01/07/2014 00:30, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/30/2014
Realistically I have rarely been involved in a project where the vote
comes out of the blue. Projects have typically already discussed whether
to move ahead with a release on the dev list in advance of the vote so
I've always known the vote was coming. While any project member can
propose a
Out of interest do the speakers see the specific comments individual
reviewers post or are these aggregated/anonymised in some way?
Rob
On 30/01/2014 04:40, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
The system gives us accept/reject rankings. If you want to communicate
more
than that, email me. Or
17 matches
Mail list logo
