[VOTE] Approve the release of PDFBox 0.8.0-incubating

[Andreas Lehmkühler]

Hi,

The PDFBox PPMC has voted to release version 0.8.0-incubating of PDFBox. The 
release candidate is available for review at

   http://people.apache.org/~lehmi/pdfbox/pdfbox-0.8.0-incubating/

See the attached original vote messages for more details.

Please vote to approve this release. This IPMC vote is open for the next 72 
hours.

  [ ] +1 Approve the release of PDFBox 0.8.0-incubating
  [ ] -1 Do not approve this release because...

The following three IPMC member votes were cast already on pdfbox-...@. I'm 
including these also in this vote.

   +1 Niall Pemberton
   +1 Jeremias Maerki
   +1 Jukka Zitting

BR
Andreas Lehmkühler

- weitergeleitete Nachricht -
Betreff: [RESULT][VOTE] Release PDFBox 0.8.0-incubating
Datum: Fr, 18. Sep 2009
Von: Andreas Lehmkühler
> Hi,
> 
> > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache PDFBox
> > 0.8.0-incubating. The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if
> > a majority of at least three +1 PDFBox PPMC votes is reached. Assuming
> > the vote passes, I will ask the Incubator PMC to approve the release.
> > 
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache PDFBox 0.8.0-incubating
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> 
> The vote passes as follows:
> 
> +1 Andreas Lehmkühler
> +1 Jukka Zitting
> +1 Niall Pemberton
> +1 Daniel Wilson
> +1 Mel Martinez (no binding vote)
> +1 Phillip Koch
> +1 Jeremias Maerki
> 
> Thanks to all for your patience and for your help reviewing this release.
> 
> I'll ask the IPMC to approve the release.
> 
> BR
> Andreas Lehmkühler

 weitergeleitete Nachricht Ende 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Relese OpenWebBeans M3- (Second Try)

[David Crossley]

Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
> 
> OpenWebBeans is an ASL-licensed implementation of the JSR-299:
> Contexts and Dependency Injection for the Java EE platform which is
> defined as JSR-299. OpenWebBeans entered the incubator in October 26, 2008. 

(This issue is not a release blocker.)

The phrase "ASL-licensed" is not correct.

The old license was "The Apache Software License, Version 1.1"
so i suppose that is where the "ASL" thing came from.

The current license is "Apache License, Version 2.0".

-David

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Relese OpenWebBeans M3- (Second Try)

[Gurkan Erdogdu]

>>>IMO a second RC requires another vote on openwebbeans-...@. Votes
>>>don't "carry over" (well mine never does) IMO.

Ok. I will create a second round VOTE on dev.

Thanks;

--Gurkan





From: Niall Pemberton 
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:37:51 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Relese OpenWebBeans M3- (Second Try)

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu
 wrote:
> Hi;
>
> This is the second try of releasing the OpenWebBeans M3. I have corrected 
> Sebb's concerns.
>
> OpenWebBeans is an ASL-licensed implementation of the JSR-299: Contexts and 
> Dependency Injection for the Java EE platform which is
> defined as JSR-299. OpenWebBeans entered the incubator in October 26, 2008.
>
> There
> are two *binding*  +1 VOTEs from openwebbeans-...@..  We still require
> to get an one more binding IPMC Member +1 VOTE  to publish M3 release.

IMO a second RC requires another vote on openwebbeans-...@. Votes
don't "carry over" (well mine never does) IMO.

Niall

> Plugins repository
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/plugins/org/apache/openwebbeans
>
> Distribution content
> 
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/distribution/org/apache/openwebbeans/apache-openwebbeans-distribution/1.0.0-incubating-M3/
>
> SVN Tag
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openwebbeans/tags/openwebbeans-1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/
>
> The release vote on the openwebbeans-dev mailing list resulted in *five* +1
> votes and no 0 or -1 votes from podling PMC members.
>
> [VOTE Thread] : 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/openwebbeans-...@incubator.apache.org/msg01228.html
>
> More information about the project can be found here:
>
> [Incubation Status Page ] : 
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openwebbeans.html
> [Project Page]: 
> http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html
> [Wiki Page]   : http://cwiki.apache.org/OWB/
> [Blog]: http://blogs.apache.org/OWB/
>
> This vote is open for 72 hours.
>
> Thanks;
>
> -- Gurkan
>
>
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


  

Re: [VOTE] Relese OpenWebBeans M3- (Second Try)

[Gurkan Erdogdu]

Hi Sebb,

>>>The several (all?) of the war files in the samples directory tree
>>>contain jsf-facelets-1.1.14.jar.
>>>This does not appear to be ASF software, but is not mentioned in
>>>NOTICE or LICENSE.
>>>IMO this is a blocker.

I removed it from the NOTICE file because it appears that JSF Facelet is 
licensed under Apache License, Version 2.0. You can look at 
https://facelets.dev.java.net/ for further information.

>>>The signing key does not have an ASF e-mail address.
>>>Not a blocker, but please fix for the next release candidate.

I updated my KEY to include my apache account. 
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Gurkan+Erdogdu&op=index contains 
gerdo...@apache.org

>>>Not quite sure what the point of the -all archives is.
>>>As far as I can tell it's just binaries + source; IMO it's unnecessary

>>>Also, while I think of it - do the archive names (and top-level dirs)
>>>have to include -distribution-? It makes the name rather long. (not a
>>>blocker, but please consider for the next release).

>From the 2 points of above comments, we got advices our mentor while we were 
>releasing
the our first milestone (M1) about how we create distribution bundles and its 
name.

Sure, I can remove "all" packages from the next release.

Thanks;

--Gurkan





From: sebb 
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:52:31 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Relese OpenWebBeans M3- (Second Try)

On 17/09/2009, Gurkan Erdogdu  wrote:
> Hi;
>
>  This is the second try of releasing the OpenWebBeans M3. I have corrected 
> Sebb's concerns.
>
>  OpenWebBeans is an ASL-licensed implementation of the JSR-299: Contexts and 
> Dependency Injection for the Java EE platform which is
>  defined as JSR-299. OpenWebBeans entered the incubator in October 26, 2008.
>
>  There
>  are two *binding*  +1 VOTEs from openwebbeans-...@..  We still require
>  to get an one more binding IPMC Member +1 VOTE  to publish M3 release.
>
>
>  Plugins repository
>  --
>  
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/plugins/org/apache/openwebbeans

The several (all?) of the war files in the samples directory tree
contain jsf-facelets-1.1.14.jar.
This does not appear to be ASF software, but is not mentioned in
NOTICE or LICENSE.
IMO this is a blocker.

>  Distribution content
>  
>  
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/distribution/org/apache/openwebbeans/apache-openwebbeans-distribution/1.0.0-incubating-M3/

The binary jar contains a war file which contains jsf-facelets-1.1.14.jar.
This does not appear to be ASF software, but is not mentioned in
NOTICE or LICENSE.
IMO this is a blocker.

The signing key does not have an ASF e-mail address.
Not a blocker, but please fix for the next release candidate.

The source archive has a slightly odd directory structure, as it has
an extra src/ directory in the path (not a blocker, but consider
removing for the next release)

Not quite sure what the point of the -all archives is.
As far as I can tell it's just binaries + source; IMO it's unnecessary
to provide a combined archive. And because of the combined archive
stores the source under src/, it contains two copies of all the sample
source files that are in the binary archive. Not a blocker, but is it
worth all the extra disk space (not to mention additional time to
review releases)?  it might make getting votes easier next time if the
all archive was dropped ...).

Also, while I think of it - do the archive names (and top-level dirs)
have to include -distribution-? It makes the name rather long. (not a
blocker, but please consider for the next release).

>  SVN Tag
>  
>  
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openwebbeans/tags/openwebbeans-1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/

Trivial typo in NOTICE.txt: "This products " => "This product "

>  The release vote on the openwebbeans-dev mailing list resulted in *five* +1
>  votes and no 0 or -1 votes from podling PMC members.
>
>  [VOTE Thread] : 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/openwebbeans-...@incubator.apache.org/msg01228.html
>
>  More information about the project can be found here:
>
>  [Incubation Status Page ] : 
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openwebbeans.html
>  [Project Page]: 
> http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html
>  [Wiki Page]   : http://cwiki.apache.org/OWB/
>  [Blog]: http://blogs.apache.org/OWB/
>
>  This vote is open for 72 hours.
>
>  Thanks;
>
>
>  -- Gurkan
>
>
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


  

Re: [VOTE] Relese OpenWebBeans M3- (Second Try)

[sebb]

On 17/09/2009, Gurkan Erdogdu  wrote:
> Hi;
>
>  This is the second try of releasing the OpenWebBeans M3. I have corrected 
> Sebb's concerns.
>
>  OpenWebBeans is an ASL-licensed implementation of the JSR-299: Contexts and 
> Dependency Injection for the Java EE platform which is
>  defined as JSR-299. OpenWebBeans entered the incubator in October 26, 2008.
>
>  There
>  are two *binding*  +1 VOTEs from openwebbeans-...@..  We still require
>  to get an one more binding IPMC Member +1 VOTE  to publish M3 release.
>
>
>  Plugins repository
>  --
>  
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/plugins/org/apache/openwebbeans

The several (all?) of the war files in the samples directory tree
contain jsf-facelets-1.1.14.jar.
This does not appear to be ASF software, but is not mentioned in
NOTICE or LICENSE.
IMO this is a blocker.

>  Distribution content
>  
>  
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/distribution/org/apache/openwebbeans/apache-openwebbeans-distribution/1.0.0-incubating-M3/

The binary jar contains a war file which contains jsf-facelets-1.1.14.jar.
This does not appear to be ASF software, but is not mentioned in
NOTICE or LICENSE.
IMO this is a blocker.

The signing key does not have an ASF e-mail address.
Not a blocker, but please fix for the next release candidate.

The source archive has a slightly odd directory structure, as it has
an extra src/ directory in the path (not a blocker, but consider
removing for the next release)

Not quite sure what the point of the -all archives is.
As far as I can tell it's just binaries + source; IMO it's unnecessary
to provide a combined archive. And because of the combined archive
stores the source under src/, it contains two copies of all the sample
source files that are in the binary archive. Not a blocker, but is it
worth all the extra disk space (not to mention additional time to
review releases)?  it might make getting votes easier next time if the
all archive was dropped ...).

Also, while I think of it - do the archive names (and top-level dirs)
have to include -distribution-? It makes the name rather long. (not a
blocker, but please consider for the next release).

>  SVN Tag
>  
>  
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openwebbeans/tags/openwebbeans-1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/

Trivial typo in NOTICE.txt: "This products " => "This product "

>  The release vote on the openwebbeans-dev mailing list resulted in *five* +1
>  votes and no 0 or -1 votes from podling PMC members.
>
>  [VOTE Thread] : 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/openwebbeans-...@incubator.apache.org/msg01228.html
>
>  More information about the project can be found here:
>
>  [Incubation Status Page ] : 
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openwebbeans.html
>  [Project Page]: 
> http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html
>  [Wiki Page]   : http://cwiki.apache.org/OWB/
>  [Blog]: http://blogs.apache.org/OWB/
>
>  This vote is open for 72 hours.
>
>  Thanks;
>
>
>  -- Gurkan
>
>
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 1.3 RC3

[Jukka Zitting]

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Todd Volkert  wrote:
> The Pivot community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache
> Pivot 1.3 Release Candidate 3. We would now like to request the permission
> of the Incubator PMC to publish the artifacts on the Pivot download page.
> [...]
> Please vote to publish this release by Thursday, Sep 17 14:00 GMT.

[x] +1 Publish

Some comments:

* You seem to have put the Apache license headers even on files that
the LICENSE file claims to be under different licenses. See
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party for instructions
on how to properly handle third party code. I don't consider this a
blocker for this release since you seem to have the original license
info in the LICENSE file, but it would be good to have the original
license headers restored for the next release.

* The file paths in LICENSE are outdated.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Relese OpenWebBeans M3- (Second Try)

[sebb]

On 17/09/2009, Niall Pemberton  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu
>   wrote:
>  > Hi;
>  >
>  > This is the second try of releasing the OpenWebBeans M3. I have corrected 
> Sebb's concerns.
>  >
>  > OpenWebBeans is an ASL-licensed implementation of the JSR-299: Contexts 
> and Dependency Injection for the Java EE platform which is
>  > defined as JSR-299. OpenWebBeans entered the incubator in October 26, 2008.
>  >
>  > There
>  > are two *binding*  +1 VOTEs from openwebbeans-...@..  We still require
>  > to get an one more binding IPMC Member +1 VOTE  to publish M3 release.
>
>
> IMO a second RC requires another vote on openwebbeans-...@. Votes
>  don't "carry over" (well mine never does) IMO.

Surely votes are *always* for a specific (immutable) set of artifacts
- otherwise what's the point?

>  Niall
>
>
>  > Plugins repository
>  > --
>  > 
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/plugins/org/apache/openwebbeans
>  >
>  > Distribution content
>  > 
>  > 
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/distribution/org/apache/openwebbeans/apache-openwebbeans-distribution/1.0.0-incubating-M3/
>  >
>  > SVN Tag
>  > 
>  > 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openwebbeans/tags/openwebbeans-1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/
>  >
>  > The release vote on the openwebbeans-dev mailing list resulted in *five* +1
>  > votes and no 0 or -1 votes from podling PMC members.
>  >
>  > [VOTE Thread] : 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/openwebbeans-...@incubator.apache.org/msg01228.html
>  >
>  > More information about the project can be found here:
>  >
>  > [Incubation Status Page ] : 
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openwebbeans.html
>  > [Project Page]: 
> http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html
>  > [Wiki Page]   : http://cwiki.apache.org/OWB/
>  > [Blog]: http://blogs.apache.org/OWB/
>  >
>  > This vote is open for 72 hours.
>  >
>  > Thanks;
>  >
>  > -- Gurkan
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Relese OpenWebBeans M3- (Second Try)

[Niall Pemberton]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu
 wrote:
> Hi;
>
> This is the second try of releasing the OpenWebBeans M3. I have corrected 
> Sebb's concerns.
>
> OpenWebBeans is an ASL-licensed implementation of the JSR-299: Contexts and 
> Dependency Injection for the Java EE platform which is
> defined as JSR-299. OpenWebBeans entered the incubator in October 26, 2008.
>
> There
> are two *binding*  +1 VOTEs from openwebbeans-...@..  We still require
> to get an one more binding IPMC Member +1 VOTE  to publish M3 release.

IMO a second RC requires another vote on openwebbeans-...@. Votes
don't "carry over" (well mine never does) IMO.

Niall

> Plugins repository
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/plugins/org/apache/openwebbeans
>
> Distribution content
> 
> http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/distribution/org/apache/openwebbeans/apache-openwebbeans-distribution/1.0.0-incubating-M3/
>
> SVN Tag
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openwebbeans/tags/openwebbeans-1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/
>
> The release vote on the openwebbeans-dev mailing list resulted in *five* +1
> votes and no 0 or -1 votes from podling PMC members.
>
> [VOTE Thread] : 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/openwebbeans-...@incubator.apache.org/msg01228.html
>
> More information about the project can be found here:
>
> [Incubation Status Page ] : 
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openwebbeans.html
> [Project Page]            : 
> http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html
> [Wiki Page]               : http://cwiki.apache.org/OWB/
> [Blog]                    : http://blogs.apache.org/OWB/
>
> This vote is open for 72 hours.
>
> Thanks;
>
> -- Gurkan
>
>
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Empire-db 2.0.5-incubating (rc6)

[Martijn Dashorst]

+1 (binding)

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Thomas Fischer  wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
>      Thomas
>
>> [VOTE] Release Apache Empire-db 2.0.5-incubating (rc6)
>>
>> Here we go again :-)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We just created an other release candidate for 2.0.5-incubating (rc6).
>> Our community approved the release so we now have a second binding
>> voting round for IPMC Members/Mentors.
>>
>> fixes since previous rc5:
>> - examples not uploaded to the maven repository any more
>> - tutorial fixed
>> - KEYS file updated
>>
>> I tried having identical archives in the dist and the maven repo but
>> failed to do so (meta inf build dates diff). But we might be able to
>> fix this in a next release. Further this was not a blocking issue.
>>
>> Change log:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/empire-db/tags/apache-empire-
>> db-2.0.5-incubating-rc6/CHANGELOG.txt?view=markup
>>
>> Subversion tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/tags/apache-
>> empire-db-2.0.5-incubating-rc6
>>
>> Maven staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/empire-db-staging-015
>>
>> Distribution files are located here
>> http://people.apache.org/~francisdb/empire-db/rc6/
>>
>> Rat report for the tag is available here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~francisdb/empire-db/rc6/rat.txt
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.somatik.be
>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.0

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Empire-db 2.0.5-incubating (rc6)

[Thomas Fischer]

+1 (binding)

  Thomas

> [VOTE] Release Apache Empire-db 2.0.5-incubating (rc6)
>
> Here we go again :-)
>
> Hi,
>
> We just created an other release candidate for 2.0.5-incubating (rc6).
> Our community approved the release so we now have a second binding
> voting round for IPMC Members/Mentors.
>
> fixes since previous rc5:
> - examples not uploaded to the maven repository any more
> - tutorial fixed
> - KEYS file updated
>
> I tried having identical archives in the dist and the maven repo but
> failed to do so (meta inf build dates diff). But we might be able to
> fix this in a next release. Further this was not a blocking issue.
>
> Change log:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/empire-db/tags/apache-empire-
> db-2.0.5-incubating-rc6/CHANGELOG.txt?view=markup
>
> Subversion tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/tags/apache-
> empire-db-2.0.5-incubating-rc6
>
> Maven staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/empire-db-staging-015
>
> Distribution files are located here
> http://people.apache.org/~francisdb/empire-db/rc6/
>
> Rat report for the tag is available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~francisdb/empire-db/rc6/rat.txt
>
> Vote open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Accept Aries proposal for incubation

[Bill Stoddard]

Jeremy Hughes wrote:

2009/9/16 Jim Jagielski :
  

On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:32 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:


...
  

IMO this is more a graduation issue, rather than something that should
prevent entry to the incubator - since thats when destination is
decided. There are many possible outcomes from that - perhaps some
parts will go to felix and others to a new TLP(s) - but I say lets see
how it works out during graduation rather than shooting it down now.

  

I agree that the rubber hits the road when graduation, and when there
is a resolution before the board to make this a TLP. However, my
thoughts are that without this concern front-and-center from the get-go,
the podling runs the risk of hitting this roadblock right at the end,
at which point who knows how much impact this may have on it... In other
words, if a podling umbrella attempts to graduate into a TLP umbrella, it
will likely be shot down. Do we really want to wait until the end to
address this once and for all?

Just my 2c.

PS: BTW, I think it's a great proposal and podling and technically am a big
   +1 on it. My only concern is lack of directed focus...



It is not our intent to create an umbrella TLP - the focus of Aries is
specifically on developing the componentry needed to enable an
enterprise OSGi application prgramming model. This will include
implementing some of the OSGi EEG specs - the initial focus is as
described in the sections "Initial Goals" and "Initial Source" but the
proposal also tries to make it clear that Aries will consume
technology from other projects where available: "It is the expectation
that Aries will therefore not be delivering components such as ...
Aries will instead seek to enable the use of such components from
other projects."

We are starting out largely speaking as a community of people with a
heritage in enterprise Java runtimes looking to encouarge the
exploitation of OSGi by the applications deployed to enterprise
environments. We are not looking to target specific runtimes or to
implement *every* spec that comes out of the EEG but we are looking to
build coherent componentry needed by enterprise applications when
deployed as OSGi bundles to an enterprise runtime. We've described
this in the "Relationship with Other Apache Projects" section. How we
evolve from the stated "initial goals" will largely depend on the
community that forms - which I believe is reasonable for a new
incubator.

To help remove any impression that Aries is looking to become an
umbrella TLP we could perhaps reword the first sentence of the
proposal from
"It is a goal of the Aries project to provide a natural home for open
source implementations of current and future OSGi EEG specifications,
.."
to
"It is a goal of the Aries project to implement OSGi EEG
specifications that are part of the enterprise application programming
model, "
to clarify the scope - this remains consistent with the rest of the proposal.

Thanks,
Jeremy

  


Crickets it's terribly quiet around here..

I am having a really difficult time getting my head around Jim and 
Niclas' objections that this is an umbrella project.  The mother of all 
umbrella projects was Jakarta... (coded in Java? It should go into 
Jakarta...); this proposal clearly isn't that.  This proposal is 
concerned with implementing an OSGi application programming model; it 
relies heavily on specs from the OSGi Alliance Enterprise Expert Group 
(EEG) and the EEG itself is a small, narrowly scoped part of the OSGi 
Alliance.  The project scope seems pretty darn succinct to me. What am I 
missing?


What I see here is a surprisingly diverse group of developers interested 
in working on a project and having the freedom to bring the vision to 
fruition.  A lot like Geronimo really, whose mission is to implement the 
JEE programming model.  Geronimo draws heavily on projects from both 
inside and outside the ASF.  If the Geronimo team requires a piece of 
technology that's not available, they collaborate with other groups to 
obtain it or do the work themselves at last resort.   In other words, 
Geronimo has operational freedom to control its own destiny.  Not a bad 
thing, imho.  It's pretty clear (at least to me :-) that the Aries 
proposal is more tightly scoped than even Geronimo and Geronimo works 
reasonably well. 

The project proposers clearly know -where- they want to go (and have 
communicated that in the proposal) .. what's understandably less clear 
is precisely how they are going to get there... that's why a degree of 
operational freedom is important; attempting to nail the proposers down 
to a precise path right now is counter productive to the success of the 
project.



Bill

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Accept Aries proposal for incubation

[Robert Burrell Donkin]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Leo Simons  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:32 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> After much thought, I am voting -1 for 1 main reason.
>
> 1: From the get-go, this appears headed towards an umbrella project.
>  Too many ways to justify "yeah, this belongs here" and far too
>  few ways to justify "nope, this doesn't quite fit in". So
>  whether TLP or part of Felix (as was the discussion), this appears
>  too comprehensive.

 This comment surprised me enough to read this proposal again, and I
 have to agree with Jim. On one hand, the proposal starts out to speak
 of "current and future EEG specifications", but then becomes very blur
 of what that really means. Components, not solutions, not a server,
 not a framework, but "components" could as Jim points out mean
 everything (or at least anything one can stick in a Bundle in OSGi
 lingo).

 Does it warrants a -1? Yes, I think it does. But considering how many
 PMC members are on the roster, I doubt it will stop anything.

 -1 from me, until I see a limitation in scope that is "describable"...
 I like the intent, but not the formulation. Look at your current
 plans, distill the essence and put that in the proposal.
>>>
>>> IMO this is more a graduation issue, rather than something that should
>>> prevent entry to the incubator - since thats when destination is
>>> decided. There are many possible outcomes from that - perhaps some
>>> parts will go to felix and others to a new TLP(s) - but I say lets see
>>> how it works out during graduation rather than shooting it down now.
>>
>> I agree that the rubber hits the road when graduation, and when there
>> is a resolution before the board to make this a TLP. However, my
>> thoughts are that without this concern front-and-center from the get-go,
>> the podling runs the risk of hitting this roadblock right at the end,
>> at which point who knows how much impact this may have on it... In other
>> words, if a podling umbrella attempts to graduate into a TLP umbrella, it
>> will likely be shot down. Do we really want to wait until the end to
>> address this once and for all?
>
> I understand and subscribe to the concern.

+1

this is an entry proposal, not one for graduation

> However,
>
> 1) it sounds like most of the Aries folk are aware of the need to
> balance this kind of thing out a bit
> 2) not all umbrellas are all bad (some projects with pretty broad
> scopes and many subprojects AND healthy communities AND good oversight
> include geronimo, maven, felix, hadoop, commons, and others)

+1

the umbrella concerns were about community and oversight, and not
software architecture

the key question is not whether apache should host modular components
(we do this already) but whether aries has a tight enough focus to
work as a community

> 3) I think the main issue is the sweeping statements in the proposal
> which is typical of java framework land, but in practice I suspect the
> actual project focus is pretty narrow, people just don't really know
> how to express that yet
> 4) given #3, I suspect that as the project matures its scope
> definition is easier so that we'll see a nice and specific board
> resolution eventually

+1

but this is going to be one of the major graduation issues and
shouldn't be left to the end

> So I'm personally rather optimistic that things will work out ok, and
> so here's my +1 to the proposal.

i'm +1 on the proposal

- robert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 1.3 RC3

[Todd Volkert]

> Where are your mentors?
>

Niclas voted +1.  Martijn is presumably dealing with his 2-month-old ;-)

Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 1.3 RC3

[Jukka Zitting]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Todd Volkert  wrote:
> Voting has expired, and we're two votes shy of the 3 required.  Can someone
> please take a look? -- it should be pretty quick, as the issues brought up
> in the rc2 candidate have all been resolved.

Where are your mentors?

I'll give the release candidate a look later today.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 1.3 RC3

[Todd Volkert]

Voting has expired, and we're two votes shy of the 3 required.  Can someone
please take a look? -- it should be pretty quick, as the issues brought up
in the rc2 candidate have all been resolved.

Thanks!
-T

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Todd Volkert  wrote:

> I've received feedback form Niclas that this VOTE email showed up in his
> email client as part of a previous thread and was easily lost.  This is just
> a heads up that it's a new vote thread for the 1.3-rc3 release candidate :)
>
> Cheers,
> -T
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Todd Volkert  wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> The Pivot community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache
>> Pivot 1.3 Release Candidate 3. We would now like to request the permission
>> of the Incubator PMC to publish the artifacts on the Pivot download page.
>>
>> Release artifacts, RAT reports, etc.:
>> http://people.apache.org/~tvolkert/dist/pivot/v1.3-rc3/
>> Tag from which the release artifacts were generated:
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/tags/v1.3-rc3/
>> Podling vote summary:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-pivot-dev/200909.mbox/%3c168ef9ac0909131804i19eb0021rbc2422906f564...@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>
>> Note that since we do not plan to distribute this release through Maven,
>> the jar and war files contained within the distribution do not contain
>> license and notice files (precluding them from downstream distribution).
>> This issue is tracked in PIVOT-260 and will be addressed for the 1.3.1
>> release.
>>
>> Please vote to publish this release by Thursday, Sep 17 14:00 GMT.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Publish
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -0
>> [ ] -1 Don't publish, because...
>>
>> Much appreciated,
>> -T
>>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release PhotArk M1-incubating (RC4a)

[Angela Cymbalak]

+1 (non-binding, I believe)

Angie

At 02:46 AM 9/17/2009, Luciano Resende wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Luciano Resende 
 wrote:

> The PhotArk community has completed a vote on it's first milestone
> release (PhotArk M1-Incubating) and  is now looking for IPMC approval
> to publish the release.
>
> Please review and vote on approving the M1-incubating release
> artifacts of PhotArk.
>
> The artifacts are available for review at:
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende/photark/M1-incubating-RC4a/
>
> This includes the signed binary and source distributions, the RAT report,
> and the Maven staging repository.
>
> The release tag is available at :
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/photark/tags/M1-incubating-RC4a/
>
> The vote thread from PhotArk dev list:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/photark-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00150.html
>
> Previous release candidate review in general list
> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21108.html
>

Here is my +1 for the release.

--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3

[Gurkan Erdogdu]

>>>Then I'm surprised you chose to do something different and IMO
>>>impatience isn't a good enough reason.
Yes, my fault. 

>>>Sebb indicated that he thought that one of the points he raised was a
>>>blocker and although you responded you didn't allow time to see if he
>>>agreed with you. Giving a response is not reaching consensus.
>>>Sometimes you don't end up agreeing, but you need to allow time to see
>>>if its possible.
Yes agree also. 

Thanks for remindering;

--Gurkan





From: Niall Pemberton 
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:25:55 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu  wrote:
> Hi Niall;
>
The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
vote.
>
"Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
regardless of their geographic locations."
from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> I have already know those rules!.

Then I'm surprised you chose to do something different and IMO
impatience isn't a good enough reason.

> Besides, I was a bit of rush because of waiting too much to release :) 
> Otherwise we were not able to release something that our community uses!
>
Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
vote.
>
> I responded Sebb explanations. I thought that it may not block this release!

Sebb indicated that he thought that one of the points he raised was a
blocker and although you responded you didn't allow time to see if he
agreed with you. Giving a response is not reaching consensus.
Sometimes you don't end up agreeing, but you need to allow time to see
if its possible.

Niall

> If possible I would like to apply Sebb's concerns in next M4 release that we 
> will try to be perfect :)
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
> 
> From: Niall Pemberton 
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:26:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu
>  wrote:
>> Hi;
>>
>> The [VOTE] is now closed. The [VOTE] to release OpenWebBeans-M3 is
>> successful.
>>
>> There are three +1 binding
>
> The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
> when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
> etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
> vote.
>
> "Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
> provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
> regardless of their geographic locations."
> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> "The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative
> proposal that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the
> concerns leading to the negative vote can be addressed."
> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making
>
> Niall
>
>> +1 Votes
>> -
>> * Kevan Miller (binding)
>> * Matthias Wessendorf (binding)
>> * Niall Pemberton (binding)
>>
>>
>> I will add distribution artifacts to the  incubator "dist/"  place and
>> upload to m3-incubator-repository
>>
>> Thanks to all;
>>
>> -- Gurkan
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


  

[VOTE] Relese OpenWebBeans M3- (Second Try)

[Gurkan Erdogdu]

Hi;

This is the second try of releasing the OpenWebBeans M3. I have corrected 
Sebb's concerns. 

OpenWebBeans is an ASL-licensed implementation of the JSR-299: Contexts and 
Dependency Injection for the Java EE platform which is
defined as JSR-299. OpenWebBeans entered the incubator in October 26, 2008. 

There
are two *binding*  +1 VOTEs from openwebbeans-...@..  We still require
to get an one more binding IPMC Member +1 VOTE  to publish M3 release.


Plugins repository 
--
http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/plugins/org/apache/openwebbeans

Distribution content

http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/distribution/org/apache/openwebbeans/apache-openwebbeans-distribution/1.0.0-incubating-M3/

SVN Tag

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openwebbeans/tags/openwebbeans-1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc2/

The release vote on the openwebbeans-dev mailing list resulted in *five* +1
votes and no 0 or -1 votes from podling PMC members.

[VOTE Thread] : 
http://www.mail-archive.com/openwebbeans-...@incubator.apache.org/msg01228.html

More information about the project can be found here:

[Incubation Status Page ] : 
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openwebbeans.html
[Project Page]: 
http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html
[Wiki Page]   : http://cwiki.apache.org/OWB/
[Blog]: http://blogs.apache.org/OWB/

This vote is open for 72 hours. 

Thanks;

-- Gurkan



  

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Niall Pemberton
 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu  
> wrote:
>> Hi Niall;
>>
>The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
>when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
>etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
>vote.
>>
>"Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
>provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
>regardless of their geographic locations."
>from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> I have already know those rules!.
>
> Then I'm surprised you chose to do something different and IMO
> impatience isn't a good enough reason.
>
>> Besides, I was a bit of rush because of waiting too much to release :) 
>> Otherwise we were not able to release something that our community uses!
>>
>Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
>etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
>vote.
>>
>> I responded Sebb explanations. I thought that it may not block this release!
>
> Sebb indicated that he thought that one of the points he raised was a
> blocker and although you responded you didn't allow time to see if he
> agreed with you. Giving a response is not reaching consensus.
> Sometimes you don't end up agreeing, but you need to allow time to see
> if its possible.

I totally agree, that rushing is not a good practice. Thanks Niall for
jumping in.

-Matthias


>
> Niall
>
>> If possible I would like to apply Sebb's concerns in next M4 release that we 
>> will try to be perfect :)
>>
>> Thanks;
>>
>> --Gurkan
>>
>>
>> 
>> From: Niall Pemberton 
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:26:57 AM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi;
>>>
>>> The [VOTE] is now closed. The [VOTE] to release OpenWebBeans-M3 is
>>> successful.
>>>
>>> There are three +1 binding
>>
>> The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
>> when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
>> etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
>> vote.
>>
>> "Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
>> provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
>> regardless of their geographic locations."
>> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> "The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative
>> proposal that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the
>> concerns leading to the negative vote can be addressed."
>> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>> +1 Votes
>>> -
>>> * Kevan Miller (binding)
>>> * Matthias Wessendorf (binding)
>>> * Niall Pemberton (binding)
>>>
>>>
>>> I will add distribution artifacts to the  incubator "dist/"  place and
>>> upload to m3-incubator-repository
>>>
>>> Thanks to all;
>>>
>>> -- Gurkan
>>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu  wrote:
> Hi Niall;
>
The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
vote.
>
"Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
regardless of their geographic locations."
from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> I have already know those rules!.
>
> Besides, I was a bit of rush because of waiting too much to release :) 
> Otherwise we were not able to release something that our community uses!

on goal of incubation is also to LEARN the Apache rules, not only to
produce code. As the main focus is to attract this podling to new
developers, there is no need to rush on providing a release for
"use-only" users. We want committers. These should be able to get the
svn TAG and work on that...


>
Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
vote.
>
> I responded Sebb explanations. I thought that it may not block this release!
>
> If possible I would like to apply Sebb's concerns in next M4 release that we 
> will try to be perfect :)

not sure what exactly he said, but please file a JIRA ticket for it,
to not forget about it.

-Matthias


>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
> 
> From: Niall Pemberton 
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:26:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu
>  wrote:
>> Hi;
>>
>> The [VOTE] is now closed. The [VOTE] to release OpenWebBeans-M3 is
>> successful.
>>
>> There are three +1 binding
>
> The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
> when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
> etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
> vote.
>
> "Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
> provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
> regardless of their geographic locations."
> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> "The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative
> proposal that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the
> concerns leading to the negative vote can be addressed."
> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making
>
> Niall
>
>> +1 Votes
>> -
>> * Kevan Miller (binding)
>> * Matthias Wessendorf (binding)
>> * Niall Pemberton (binding)
>>
>>
>> I will add distribution artifacts to the  incubator "dist/"  place and
>> upload to m3-incubator-repository
>>
>> Thanks to all;
>>
>> -- Gurkan
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Niall Pemberton
 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu  
> wrote:
>> Hi Niall;
>>
>The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
>when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
>etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
>vote.
>>
>"Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
>provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
>regardless of their geographic locations."
>from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> I have already know those rules!.
>
> Then I'm surprised you chose to do something different and IMO
> impatience isn't a good enough reason.

same here

>
>> Besides, I was a bit of rush because of waiting too much to release :) 
>> Otherwise we were not able to release something that our community uses!
>>
>Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
>etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
>vote.
>>
>> I responded Sebb explanations. I thought that it may not block this release!
>
> Sebb indicated that he thought that one of the points he raised was a
> blocker and although you responded you didn't allow time to see if he
> agreed with you. Giving a response is not reaching consensus.
> Sometimes you don't end up agreeing, but you need to allow time to see
> if its possible.
>
> Niall
>
>> If possible I would like to apply Sebb's concerns in next M4 release that we 
>> will try to be perfect :)
>>
>> Thanks;
>>
>> --Gurkan
>>
>>
>> 
>> From: Niall Pemberton 
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:26:57 AM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi;
>>>
>>> The [VOTE] is now closed. The [VOTE] to release OpenWebBeans-M3 is
>>> successful.
>>>
>>> There are three +1 binding
>>
>> The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
>> when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
>> etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
>> vote.
>>
>> "Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
>> provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
>> regardless of their geographic locations."
>> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> "The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative
>> proposal that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the
>> concerns leading to the negative vote can be addressed."
>> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>> +1 Votes
>>> -
>>> * Kevan Miller (binding)
>>> * Matthias Wessendorf (binding)
>>> * Niall Pemberton (binding)
>>>
>>>
>>> I will add distribution artifacts to the  incubator "dist/"  place and
>>> upload to m3-incubator-repository
>>>
>>> Thanks to all;
>>>
>>> -- Gurkan
>>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3

[Niall Pemberton]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu  wrote:
> Hi Niall;
>
The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
vote.
>
"Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
regardless of their geographic locations."
from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> I have already know those rules!.

Then I'm surprised you chose to do something different and IMO
impatience isn't a good enough reason.

> Besides, I was a bit of rush because of waiting too much to release :) 
> Otherwise we were not able to release something that our community uses!
>
Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
vote.
>
> I responded Sebb explanations. I thought that it may not block this release!

Sebb indicated that he thought that one of the points he raised was a
blocker and although you responded you didn't allow time to see if he
agreed with you. Giving a response is not reaching consensus.
Sometimes you don't end up agreeing, but you need to allow time to see
if its possible.

Niall

> If possible I would like to apply Sebb's concerns in next M4 release that we 
> will try to be perfect :)
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
> 
> From: Niall Pemberton 
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:26:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release OpenWebBeans M3
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu
>  wrote:
>> Hi;
>>
>> The [VOTE] is now closed. The [VOTE] to release OpenWebBeans-M3 is
>> successful.
>>
>> There are three +1 binding
>
> The usual process is to allow 72hrs for a vote and not just declare it
> when 3 votes are received. Also Sebb raised an issue and IMO its good
> etiquette to allow discussions to run their course before declaring a
> vote.
>
> "Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
> provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
> regardless of their geographic locations."
> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> "The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative
> proposal that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the
> concerns leading to the negative vote can be addressed."
> from http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making
>
> Niall
>
>> +1 Votes
>> -
>> * Kevan Miller (binding)
>> * Matthias Wessendorf (binding)
>> * Niall Pemberton (binding)
>>
>>
>> I will add distribution artifacts to the  incubator "dist/"  place and
>> upload to m3-incubator-repository
>>
>> Thanks to all;
>>
>> -- Gurkan
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org