[VOTE] Release Apache Empire-db 2.2.0-incubating (rc1)
Hi, The Apache Empire-db community has approved the 2.2.0-incubating release and we are now looking for approval of the IPMC to publish the release. With this release we have made a major API change removing unrecommended legacy features that have been non-standard Java. The API now is much clearer and even more straight forward to use. Other improvements addressed the reduction of duplicate code for DDL generation and improvements in the Empire-db code generator that produces Java code from existing data models. For a full list of changes please take a look at the changelog. Changelog: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/empire-db/tags/apache-empire-db-2.2.0-incubating-rc1/CHANGELOG.txt?view=co Subversion tag: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/tags/apache-empire-db-2.2.0-incubating-rc1 Maven staging repository: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheempire-db-087/ Distribution files are located here http://people.apache.org/~francisdb/empire-db/ Rat report for the tag is available here: http://people.apache.org/~francisdb/empire-db/rat.txt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
The current RAT situation leads me to suggest that we graduate Empire. As a mentor, I'd characterize Empire-Db as a project that was long ago ready, save for the same issue as RAT: a small group that grows very, very, slowly. They respond on their email, they apply Apache process, they make releases. While our usual desire is to see a larger group and more growth, I suggest that their tenacious existence for all this time suggests that they could be depended upon to last, in the worst case, a good long time as a TLP. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
Hi, On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Thoughts? AFAICT this problem is pretty common in many long-term podlings. They have the seeds for becoming large, sustainable TLPs, but for one reason or another haven't been able to grow their communities to meet our diversity requirements. Currently such projects are caught in a bind, unable to graduate but also unwilling to leave the ASF for another home. To me this suggests that our current three state transitions [1] from the podling phase -- termination, continuation and graduation -- may need some adjustment. That could mean introducing new exit strategies or relaxing the existing ones. In any case it seems like a good idea to impose some sort of soft time limit on the continuation strategy. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
Hi all, thanks Jukka for your view on this issue and thank you Benson for bringing this topic up. I am one of the Empire-db committers and certainly we would appreciate it very much if there is a way for us to graduate. It is true that we are a small community of around 5 regularly active committers but at least we're divers (i.e. non related and regionally distributed) and as far as we can tell from our mailing lists, it looks as there are a number of users who appriciate our work as they ask questions and give us positive feedback. Personally I would find it very sad if we would not be able to continue staying with the ASF as we kind of feel at home here and everything we do is done the Apache way. The one thing we have failed, is to advertise and market our project better. As we all have our jobs to do and no (time) sponsor for this we always rather spent our time improving the code rather than working on marekting - and to be honest, being software developers marketing is not really our core competence. I would not be surprised if other projects in the incubator would have similar problems. Certainly there is no way for us to compete with projects like Subversion or Open Office and there is no way for us to ever get there. But I hope that it is not only size that matters. Regards, Rainer from: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com] to: general@incubator.apache.org re: Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire? Hi, On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Thoughts? AFAICT this problem is pretty common in many long-term podlings. They have the seeds for becoming large, sustainable TLPs, but for one reason or another haven't been able to grow their communities to meet our diversity requirements. Currently such projects are caught in a bind, unable to graduate but also unwilling to leave the ASF for another home. To me this suggests that our current three state transitions [1] from the podling phase -- termination, continuation and graduation -- may need some adjustment. That could mean introducing new exit strategies or relaxing the existing ones. In any case it seems like a good idea to impose some sort of soft time limit on the continuation strategy. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html BR, Jukka Zitting - 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: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Rainer Döbele doeb...@esteam.de wrote: Hi all, thanks Jukka for your view on this issue and thank you Benson for bringing this topic up. I am one of the Empire-db committers and certainly we would appreciate it very much if there is a way for us to graduate. It is true that we are a small community of around 5 regularly active committers but at least we're divers (i.e. non related and regionally distributed) and as far as we can tell from our mailing lists, it looks as there are a number of users who appriciate our work as they ask questions and give us positive feedback. Personally I would find it very sad if we would not be able to continue staying with the ASF as we kind of feel at home here and everything we do is done the Apache way. The one thing we have failed, is to advertise and market our project better. As we all have our jobs to do and no (time) sponsor for this we always rather spent our time improving the code rather than working on marekting - and to be honest, being software developers marketing is not really our core competence. I would not be surprised if other projects in the incubator would have similar problems. Certainly there is no way for us to compete with projects like Subversion or Open Office and there is no way for us to ever get there. But I hope that it is not only size that matters. IMHO 5 diverse, active and regular committers is enough to sustain a TLP I would be reluctant to graduate small projects before they've demonstrated sustainability but I think that empire-db has done this. Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: The current RAT situation leads me to suggest that we graduate Empire. As a mentor, I'd characterize Empire-Db as a project that was long ago ready, save for the same issue as RAT: a small group that grows very, very, slowly. (Rat has a complex history and is a outlier in many ways...) Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote: In any case it seems like a good idea to impose some sort of soft time limit on the continuation strategy. Prospective podlings are well-advised to consider that if things don't work out, a project which might have been perfectly viable elsewhere for years to come will have to deal with both the disruption of a name change and the stigma of having a big red termination stamp applied by the Incubator PMC. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html I've always disliked how that document makes a big deal about termination reflecting poorly on the project, e.g.: If you receive a recommendation for termination then you have a problem. A podling's contributors put in months or years worth of work donating their time and creative output to the Foundation, and then on termination, instead of celebrating what was achieved, we encumber the resumes of our volunteers by permanently enshrining their project's problems. Is it any wonder that podlings linger when we make the alternative so unpleasant? Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
Prospective podlings are well-advised to consider that if things don't work out, a project which might have been perfectly viable elsewhere for years to come will have to deal with both the disruption of a name change and the stigma of having a big red termination stamp applied by the Incubator PMC. I have one additional thought here. If the foundation really doesn't want a 5-person stable project, I think that the incubator should state objective criteria: you get X years and you have to show Y people. In the case of Empire, I have a special sympathy for them because they have been permitted to exist in the incubator for such a long time. The negative impact of being sent out into the cold, cruel, world of github and no foundation-al legal cover strikes me as getting larger the longer you operate as a podling. Even so, my basic view is that these folks are viable as a TLP, and if someone really disagrees, I might feel strongly enough to ask the board to shoot my head off for asking it to weigh in. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: [...snip...] Even so, my basic view is that these folks are viable as a TLP, and if someone really disagrees, I might feel strongly enough to ask the board to shoot my head off for asking it to weigh in. +1 to that Benson. I agree with you and will join you in that death march, if needed :-)* Cheers, Chris * - so long as the proverbial Phoenix can rise :-) ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
On Oct 30, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: [...snip...] Even so, my basic view is that these folks are viable as a TLP, and if someone really disagrees, I might feel strongly enough to ask the board to shoot my head off for asking it to weigh in. +1 to that Benson. I agree with you and will join you in that death march, if needed :-)* If you look I'm sure you'll find a few TLPs with moments in their history with 5 or fewer active committers. Take Apache POI which came out of Jakarta. Apache POI is certainly a widely used project with a 10 year history and a large user base. The user and dev list are fairly active. It would be hard to argue that we ever have more than 5 active committers at any time. We do manage to recruit new committers and have a long roster of formerly active committers. Does Empire have the same 5 committers or has their roster changed? Regards, Dave Cheers, Chris * - so long as the proverbial Phoenix can rise :-) ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - 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
Incubation end states (was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?)
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote: To me this suggests that our current three state transitions [1] from the podling phase -- termination, continuation and graduation -- may need some adjustment. That could mean introducing new exit strategies or relaxing the existing ones. How about adding another Incubation end state: migration? * The project migrates to a new home at Github or wherever, leaving behind the Foundation's infrastructure, administrative oversight, and legal umbrella. A name change would be required (unfortunately) to avoid trademark complications. However, the project would pledge to continue operating according to the Apache Way in its new home: meritocracy, PMCs, hats, votes, quarterly reports entered into a record, etc. * Ideally, the ASF would continue to receive CLAs for migrated podlings. That way, license headers would not need to change, and the potential return of a project to the Incubator should its community expand would be streamlined. IANAL and I don't know if this is either feasible or advisable, but I do know that it's hard to deal with CLAs as an indie project. * Migration would require an affirmative vote of both the PPMC and the IPMC on a proposal akin to the one drawn up prior to entry into the Incubator. If you're thinking that there is little in this proposal that a terminated podling with sufficiently motivated contributors couldn't do on its own, you're right. But the difference here is while termination punishes a project for its supposed failures in not meeting the lofty standards required of an Apache TLP, migration rewards the project for what it achieves while in the Incubator and enables it to thrive on its own in the wild. In addition to better serving our podlings, I suspect that providing a positive end state other than graduation would help to control the Incubator's seemingly ever-expanding podling population. It would also mitigate pressure to relax the standards for an ASF TLP, though what with the Attic and all there may be other legitimate rationales for relaxing those standards. Lastly, drawing up some guidelines for how projects not at Apache can operate according to an approximation of the Apache Way might be a worthy task for its own sake, providing the ASF a channel to spread its values without incurring more administrative overhead. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
Hi Dave, I have been with the project from the beginning and so far we have accepted one new comitter per year - after we felt that they have shown their comittment submitting patches for some time. So in total we have had 3 new comitters since incubation and they are all still active. However some of the initial comitters are not active any more. Regards Rainer from: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] to: general@incubator.apache.org re: Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire? On Oct 30, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: [...snip...] Even so, my basic view is that these folks are viable as a TLP, and if someone really disagrees, I might feel strongly enough to ask the board to shoot my head off for asking it to weigh in. +1 to that Benson. I agree with you and will join you in that death march, if needed :-)* If you look I'm sure you'll find a few TLPs with moments in their history with 5 or fewer active committers. Take Apache POI which came out of Jakarta. Apache POI is certainly a widely used project with a 10 year history and a large user base. The user and dev list are fairly active. It would be hard to argue that we ever have more than 5 active committers at any time. We do manage to recruit new committers and have a long roster of formerly active committers. Does Empire have the same 5 committers or has their roster changed? Regards, Dave Cheers, Chris * - so long as the proverbial Phoenix can rise :-) ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubation end states (was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?)
Two quick comments, haven't read the context: Marvin Humphrey wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:26:57 -0700: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote: To me this suggests that our current three state transitions [1] from the podling phase -- termination, continuation and graduation -- may need some adjustment. That could mean introducing new exit strategies or relaxing the existing ones. How about adding another Incubation end state: migration? * The project migrates to a new home at Github or wherever, leaving behind the Foundation's infrastructure, administrative oversight, and legal umbrella. A name change would be required (unfortunately) to avoid trademark complications. However, the project would pledge to continue operating according to the Apache Way in its new home: meritocracy, PMCs, hats, votes, quarterly reports entered into a record, etc. If the community has consensus to move, won't it make sense to pursue a solution that keeps the trademark with the community? Lastly, drawing up some guidelines for how projects not at Apache can operate according to an approximation of the Apache Way might be a worthy task for its own sake, providing the ASF a channel to spread its values without incurring more administrative overhead. Yep, sounds like stuff for $otherlist though. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
Hi, On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO 5 diverse, active and regular committers is enough to sustain a TLP Agreed. Our key metric here is having at least three independent (and active) committers, which sounds like to be the case for Empire-db. My comments earlier were about projects that struggle to meet that goal, which based on Benson's first message sounded like a problem here like it has been with many other podlings. BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubation end states (was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?)
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote: Two quick comments, haven't read the context: Marvin Humphrey wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:26:57 -0700: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote: To me this suggests that our current three state transitions [1] from the podling phase -- termination, continuation and graduation -- may need some adjustment. That could mean introducing new exit strategies or relaxing the existing ones. How about adding another Incubation end state: migration? I think that a different question deserves exploration, first. We all know what conventional success looks like for a podling: splashy growth, lots of people, even press. Of course, we also all know that this is sometimes the result of extensive quiet investment by companies. I'm now thinking that the podling that started this discussion is, in fact, merely on the low end of conventional success. We know what failure looks like. The silence of the grave. We also know what to do with these. The question is, what to do with, oh, 'brown dwarfs'. And I think it's worth looking in particular at 'diverse brown dwarfs'. A project consisting entirely of people employed in one place as a natural home in that place, and that place can work out trademark issues with the foundation. On the one hand, a small group of people can chug along doing work consistent with the Foundation's mission indefinitely, serving the public good. On the other hand, a small group is at constant risk of accident in which they drop below the active size needed to release and add committers. Should they get pushed out? Or should we look for a way to offer then the supervision needed to stick around? The Foundation has decided that 'umbrellas' are unreliable sources of supervision. Labs might be a model, but labs can't release, and can't add contributors unless they earn their stripes elsewhere in the Foundation. Could the incubator, or a clone of the incubator, serve as a permanent home for small projects? Essentially, this amounts to removing all the 'incubator' disclaimer and branding requirements for these projects, and retaining the volunteer supervision of the sort of people who are willing to be mentors (e.g. Foundation members and others voted by the iPMC). This would put additional eyes in the supervision process, and still allow growth. In the world of github, no one needs to be an ASF project to get source control hosting. The problem of 'brand vampires' is solved by requiring these projects to be 'small but diverse.' The project *and the users* get the advantage of operating in the Foundation's legal umbrella, and those users are what, to me, makes this consistent with the mission. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubation end states (was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?)
Benson Margulies wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 15:33:25 -0400: Could the incubator, or a clone of the incubator, serve as a permanent home for small projects? Essentially, this amounts to removing all the 'incubator' disclaimer and branding requirements for these projects, and retaining the volunteer supervision of the sort of people who are willing to be mentors (e.g. Foundation members and others voted by the iPMC). This would put additional eyes in the supervision process, and still allow growth. Thinking out load: perhaps just promote the project into a TLP, while having a few IPMC members volunteer to become PMC members of the new TLP and provide oversight? In the world of github, no one needs to be an ASF project to get source control hosting. The problem of 'brand vampires' is solved by requiring these projects to be 'small but diverse.' The project *and the users* get the advantage of operating in the Foundation's legal umbrella, and those users are what, to me, makes this consistent with the mission. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Trademark Kill Searches...
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: Opinions? Objections? Improvements? Comments? silence/ Just one comment: the kill search term sounds odd to me. Where did it come from? To me it suggests something a crazy hunter would do when looking for prey to kill. (I suspect this might be an example of lawyer humour) The idea is to kill bad names early (fail fast) before expensive legal advice is sort Wouldn't something like trademark search be more to the point? AIUI trademark search is an overloaded technical legal term. In some cases, the board may need to actually pay for an actual trademark search. This would get confusing for everyone. But yes, I agree that using kill search is probably a bad idea. What podlings needs to do is essentially fact finding (not interpretation). Perhaps someone could come up with something along this line of thinking... Podling Name Filter...? Podling Name Hunt...? Podling Name Elimination...? That Trademark Stuff Podlings Need To Do...? (Or someone could just suggest a cool name) Ideas? Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubation end states (was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?)
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote: Benson Margulies wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 15:33:25 -0400: Could the incubator, or a clone of the incubator, serve as a permanent home for small projects? Essentially, this amounts to removing all the 'incubator' disclaimer and branding requirements for these projects, and retaining the volunteer supervision of the sort of people who are willing to be mentors (e.g. Foundation members and others voted by the iPMC). This would put additional eyes in the supervision process, and still allow growth. Thinking out load: perhaps just promote the project into a TLP, while having a few IPMC members volunteer to become PMC members of the new TLP and provide oversight? Yup. No muss, no fuss, no new mechanisms. In the world of github, no one needs to be an ASF project to get source control hosting. The problem of 'brand vampires' is solved by requiring these projects to be 'small but diverse.' The project *and the users* get the advantage of operating in the Foundation's legal umbrella, and those users are what, to me, makes this consistent with the mission. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Trademark Kill Searches...
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: But yes, I agree that using kill search is probably a bad idea. What podlings needs to do is essentially fact finding (not interpretation). Perhaps someone could come up with something along this line of thinking... Podling Name Filter...? Podling Name Hunt...? Podling Name Elimination...? That Trademark Stuff Podlings Need To Do...? (Or someone could just suggest a cool name) Ideas? Not sure this action item needs to have a single, well-defined name, but I think you are approaching it from the wrong angle. Instead of eliminating, the projects need to do something like name availability search, or even confirming availability of a trademark, although it's difficult to get a 100% confirmation. It should be enough just to verify the availability to the best of your ability using common, best-practice guidance. Kalle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Trademark Kill Searches...
Kalle Korhonen wrote: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: But yes, I agree that using kill search is probably a bad idea. What podlings needs to do is essentially fact finding (not interpretation). Perhaps someone could come up with something along this line of thinking... Podling Name Filter...? Podling Name Hunt...? Podling Name Elimination...? That Trademark Stuff Podlings Need To Do...? (Or someone could just suggest a cool name) Ideas? Not sure this action item needs to have a single, well-defined name, but I think you are approaching it from the wrong angle. Instead of eliminating, the projects need to do something like name availability search, or even confirming availability of a trademark, although it's difficult to get a 100% confirmation. It should be enough just to verify the availability to the best of your ability using common, best-practice guidance. I was wondering along these lines too. Make up our own term from a positive angle. Suitable Names Search In the last few days i have also been investigating our Guidelines documentation. There does not seem to be much assistance for this task. I have commenced some additions. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubation end states (was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?)
Benson Margulies wrote: Daniel Shahaf wrote: Thinking out load: perhaps just promote the project into a TLP, while having a few IPMC members volunteer to become PMC members of the new TLP and provide oversight? Yup. No muss, no fuss, no new mechanisms. Good solution. Presume that the project's community and the IPMC is sure that there is definite potential. -David. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
