On Wed, 21 May 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Refer to the recent commit and let me know what you think.
I've already done so 8-)
+1 on the bylaws as they are right now.
> Should the latter be restricted to PMC members?
Proposal of subprojects should not be restricted to PMC
On Wed, 21 May 2003 07:41 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> Do we need to refer to RfR at all?
No. Actually I don't like RfR either. I've removed it and added a snippet to
cover new sub-project creation here too. Refer to the recent commit and let
me know what you think. Should the latter be restric
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Good point, 2/3 majority is fine by me.
+1
Stefan
On Wed, 21 May 2003 04:19 pm, Bruce Atherton wrote:
>
> Ok, done.
>
Great - thanks.
> But in proofing the document I realized there was another issue that may be
> a significant typo or may just require a bit more editing.
>
> The responsibilities section says this:
> > The PMC may consider the
There's one thing I don't like, the "Adoption of New Codebase" part
under "Actions".
As the text is it reads (at least I read it that way) as if "Rules for
Revolutionaries" were the only possible way to adopt a new code base.
Apart from the fact that I personally don't like RfR too much, I think
t
At 09:41 AM 5/21/2003 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
No, fixing typos wouldn't affect the vote, so please go ahead and fix them :-)
Ok, done.
But in proofing the document I realized there was another issue that may be
a significant typo or may just require a bit more editing.
The responsibilities s
> PMC members,
>
> I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site
> /anakia/docs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
>
> Could you please view this and vote indicating your position. If
> you wish to
> vote -1 because you don't beli
On Wed, 21 May 2003 05:30 am, Bruce Atherton wrote:
>
> +1 assuming the typos are fixed. I'd go in and fix them, but I'm not sure
> whether that might affect the vote.
>
No, fixing typos wouldn't affect the vote, so please go ahead and fix them :-)
Thanks
Conor
On Wed, 21 May 2003 03:29 am, Steve Loughran wrote:
> +1, with couple of questions
>
> -I'm unsure about the point that Active PMC members have the binding vote
> for committers -to date its been open to all committers to have binding
> votes. Is there a reason for the change?
>
The PMC role is t
At 05:00 PM 5/20/2003 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
PMC members,
I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site/anakia/docs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
+1 assuming the typos are fixed. I'd go in and fix them, but I'm not sure
wheth
+1, with couple of questions
-I'm unsure about the point that Active PMC members have the binding vote
for committers -to date its been open to all committers to have binding
votes. Is there a reason for the change?
-We dont have anything (formally) about the survey process used to cover
Java1.1
Conor MacNeill wrote:
> PMC members,
>
> I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site/anakia/docs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
>
> Could you please view this and vote indicating your position. If you wish
> to vote -1 because
+1
On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 03:00 AM, Conor MacNeill wrote:
PMC members,
I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site/
anakia/docs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
Could you please view this and vote indicating your position. I
+1
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 3:00 AM
Subject: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
> PMC members,
>
> I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
>
http://cvs.apache.org/vi
14 matches
Mail list logo
