+1
On 19 Sep 06, at 1:06 AM 19 Sep 06, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Howdy ActiveMQ Mentors... you know who you are :)
So far I think we have 2 binding +1's from:
+1 Robert Burrell Donkin
+1 James Strachan
I know you guys are probably busy, but could you please take a moment
and review the binaries?
On 9/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The proposal can be found in the Incubator wiki here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UIMA
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You want to request a vote, you include
the proposal in the e-mail. OK, I'll admit, I've seen the follow up
Could incubator PMC members please take a look at this release ?
Or should I restart a vote ?
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
i'd like to see these issues resolved
I have uploaded new binaries with the above problems fixed.
On 9/18/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html is currently a
draft document. i think that it's strong enough to push towards
promoting it (and putting it in the indexes).
+1 to marking it as a non-draft document, it seems quite
Hi,
When we requested OASIS to set up a Technical Committee chartered to
develop a platform-independent specification for text and multi-modal
analysis, we specified that it be set up under the RF on Limited Terms
mode of the OASIS IP Policy. RF means Royalty Free, and the Limited
Terms
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
please confirm that the [necessary] standard is not IP encumbered.
IMO, we should make sure to have this question on the submission
template.
IMO need to think about this through a little.
Absolutely. The question to be asked isn't the
David Ferrucci wrote:
we specified that [UIMA] be set up under the RF on Limited Terms
mode of the OASIS IP Policy.
RF on Limited Terms specifies the exact Royalty Free licensing
terms and conditions that may be included in a patent holder's
license and that must be granted upon request
Garrett Rooney wrote:
snip
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting
any potential podling that can't explain what it is that they do
within the first paragraph of the proposal. I'm a fairly intelligent
person, but honestly I have no clue what an architecture and
David Reid asked:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
david reid wrote:
Where is the information you maintain presently?
The site is built from
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/,
and the specific stuff that you'd be looking for is in
multiple locations:
Projects (one file
On 9/18/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html is currently a
draft document. i think that it's strong enough to push towards
promoting it (and putting it in the indexes).
+1.
1 presentation (is the way the content presented easily
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you're right. Others have noted that our opening paragraphs are not
very clear. We did however follow up with more explanation that
satisfied others on the list. Are you saying that these further
explanations are still not clear, or that those
Since the last report, there has been significant progress made by
individual projects within the Incubator (below).
Traffic on general@incubator.apache.org has been significant, with
contributions and oversight by many ASF Members and Directors. General
Incubator topics of discussion have
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The notification clause mentioned in the FAQ has been considered an issue
for the ASF, as it passes that obligation to downstream consumers of our
code. Does that apply to UIMA?
I looked in the FAQ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php but
didn't see the
It's really good, I like the template a lot. It will probably be very
helpful. And I agree that a TOC would be helpful.
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/18/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html is
On 9/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the last report, there has been significant progress made by
individual projects within the Incubator (below).
Note that we asked for one-line summaries of podlings that are
included in the report. Is there any chance we can get that
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
snip
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting
any potential podling that can't explain what it is that they do
within the first paragraph of the proposal. I'm a fairly intelligent
person, but
This is very good Robert. Comments inline:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html is currently a
draft document. i think that it's strong enough to push towards
promoting it (and putting it in the indexes).
feedback would be very much appreciated. as
Marshall Schor wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The notification clause mentioned in the FAQ has been considered an
issue
for the ASF, as it passes that obligation to downstream consumers of our
code. Does that apply to UIMA?
I looked in the FAQ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php
I would like to use this as part of the run-up for Tuscany's next
release. Did you check this in somewhere and if so where? If not, can
I have a copy I can run locally?
Thanks
--
Jeremy
On Sep 14, 2006, at 2:31 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
i have a basic tool that i've been running
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well
in and of itself. My objection isn't just your proposal is unclear,
it's also in part that
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well
in and of itself. My objection
On 9/19/06, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could incubator PMC members please take a look at this release ?
i've taken a quick look and the license issues look better now
Or should I restart a vote ?
IMHO it would be cleaner to do so. it can be hard to tally and follow
VOTE
On 9/19/06, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to use this as part of the run-up for Tuscany's next
release.
Did you check this in somewhere and if so where?
i've been having a bit of a think about whether committers is the
right place. this would be the first actively
On 20/09/2006, at 6:52 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
what the project does in the mailing list discussion
On 9/19/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I look at some of the enterprise java proposals and have
no clue about them either
as i don't track the SOA/WS specs that closely.
Yes, and that's a BAD thing. If this proposal was for some
j2ee/WS/SOA related monstrosity with 98
Excellent, now that this is out of the way, I'm looking forward to an improved
proposal, so we can vote on it.
Perhaps, if Garrett doesn't mind, you may want to run the improved proposal by
Garrett first, before sending a new [VOTE] email with inlined proposal to the
list.
Otis
- Original
26 matches
Mail list logo
