peter royal wrote:
i'm volunteering to help mentor celtixfire, i've added myself to the
list in the wiki.
-pete
Excellent, thanks for volunteering! Cheers,
- Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
On 6/29/06, Martin Sebor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not quite comfortable with the word inaccurate here. What
exactly does it refer to? (Assuming it's bullet 5, there doesn't
seem anything inaccurate about putting out a press release
announcing the proposal of a project, ill-advised though it
On 6/29/06, Martin Sebor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[...]
5. Until the Incubator PMC approves a podling proposal *and* the
podling initial drop code is in our source code repositories, a
project or any affiliated persons SHOULD NOT issue any 'press
releases' or
On 29.06.2006, at 12:11, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 6/29/06, Martin Sebor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not quite comfortable with the word inaccurate here. What
exactly does it refer to? (Assuming it's bullet 5, there doesn't
seem anything inaccurate about putting out a press release
For the last IETF meeting, Dick Hardt of Sxip had created a mailing list called
DIX (http://dixs.org http://dixs.org/ ) and had a BOF under the same name. It
was focused on the Sxip 2.0 protocol as a way to move authentication and
profile assertions. Sxip 2.0 is also based upon OpenID 1.1 at a
Great, Welcome Aboard! Thanks for volunteering to help us out.
Regards,
Adi Sakala
-Original Message-
From: peter royal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:44 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: mentoring celtixfire
i'm volunteering to help mentor
+1
On Jun 29, 2006, at 3:11 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We have had way way way too many problems with podlings seeking
publicity when they had no code yet. Kabuki is just the latest
example - right after being accepted, IBM/Zimbra issued a PR - but
they then silently went away after getting
On 6/25/06, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
ServiceMix community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
3.0-M2.
We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to
perform the release.
Vote
From conversations at ApacheCon, and gentle nudging at dinner last night from
Danese Cooper, it sounds like we should come up with a better name. The
current thought is Ibid. So it works in ID and has a good geeky literary
reference.
Thoughts?
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/29/06, Martin Sebor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
if this document doesn't work in it's current form, please post your
proposed improvements so we can all take a look (that goes for everyone BTW
:-)
I see no problem with the rest of the document. My only
While I don't necessarily disagree with this guideline it doesn't
seem that it belongs here. Until a project is accepted no formal
relationship between the proposer and the ASF exists (right?), so
this guideline cannot be enforced or even expected to be known to
the proposing party. (It only
From below: For example, it's become standard that people use a
certain general model or template to submit their
proposals. (We are now trying to create an official template, but the
last X submissions have largely followed the same unofficial pattern).
I don't think it's unreasonable that
sophitia que wrote:
[...]
I don't think it's unreasonable that we expect proposing parties to at
least browse and read parts of the incubator web site prior to a
submission. Our obligation, as the incubator, would be to 1) ensure that
any official guidelines we develop are prominently and
On Jun 29, 2006, at 6:50 AM, Recordon, David wrote:
For the last IETF meeting, Dick Hardt of Sxip had created a mailing
list called DIX (http://dixs.org http://dixs.org/ ) and had a BOF
under the same name. It was focused on the Sxip 2.0 protocol as a
way to move authentication and profile
Yes, my mistake about Lisa being a member. Someone earlier in the week told me
that she was and I never double checked that, no harm intended.
Agreed, using the IETF to represent the community that makes it up.
Certainly the predicted direction today can easily change and it will be very
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jun 29, 2006, at 6:50 AM, Recordon, David wrote:
it sounds like the IETF would not be interested in standardizing a
protocol above the HTTP layer. Rather, they are looking at a 2-3 year
process to modify something like TLS to support authentication. Then
once that
16 matches
Mail list logo
