On Sep 30, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 28 Sep 06, at 12:59 PM 28 Sep 06, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Well, PMCs are formed by the board when a project moves to top level
status. PPMCs are formed for an incubating project, and exactly how
that works tends to differ a bit between
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 30, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 28 Sep 06, at 12:59 PM 28 Sep 06, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Well, PMCs are formed by the board when a project moves to top level
status. PPMCs are formed for an incubating project, and exactly how
that works
+1 to Dan's opinion.
--steve
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 30, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 28 Sep 06, at 12:59 PM 28 Sep 06, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Well, PMCs are formed by the board when a project moves to top
On 9/30/06, Andrus Adamchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cayenne community has voted and approved 2.0.1 release of Cayenne.
This release marks a major milestone in Cayenne incubation as we've
fully resolved all IP issues and got rid of incompatible license
dependencies. Now we would like to request
On 9/30/06, Andrus Adamchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cayenne community has voted and approved 2.0.1 release of Cayenne.
This release marks a major milestone in Cayenne incubation as we've
fully resolved all IP issues and got rid of incompatible license
dependencies. Now we would like to request
Robert,
setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process perspective.
the initial list of committers was elected by the incubator PMC as
part of the approval process. IMO the incubator PMC cannot provide
oversight if we delegate power to the PPMCs to change their terms of
Hi Robert,
On Oct 1, 2006, at 12:57 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
oh yes: the LICENSE and NOTICE files are ok but the LICENSE file could
be improved by including an indication about to which artifact or
source file the particular license applies.
I guess then it would duplicate NOTICE
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
+1 a step in the right direction.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
+1 a step in the right
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I think starting with the mentors is the wisest choice as at that
point any committers can be brought aboard if deemed fit.
My view of that should be quite clear by now. :-)
I was also confused about this as I heard one thing from Noel and
one thing from Jim
Can you
+1 from me on the process. FWIW, that's what we followed in Harmony
and then ODE.
FWIW, As a mentor for a specific project, I'd like to see some
activity (patches/bugs) from a proposed committer. Not just say a
couple of one line emails before i vote them in as a committer.
thanks,
dims
On
On 1 Oct 06, at 1:05 PM 1 Oct 06, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
+1
--- Noel
On 10/1/06, Dan Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am pretty philosophically against making every committer PPMC members.
Apache is meritocracy based and IMO it makes much more sense to start
with the mentors on the PPMC and have committers voted on based on their
leadership. There may be
On 10/1/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
proposal. We shouldn't be indicating that we are in favour of a
proposal if we're not going to make the committers listed committers.
This works for some proposals but not for
Dan Diephouse wrote:
I assume you're referring to this sentence:
Initially, it is composed of the Podling's mentors and initial
committers.
I have also found some threads which indicate that all committers should
be added [1][2]. I want to know here - who is wrong? The documentation?
On 10/1/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The
On 10/1/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
proposal. We shouldn't be indicating that we are in favour of a
proposal if we're not going to make the committers listed
Henri Yandell wrote:
Mads Toftum wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
+1 a step in the right direction.
+1 provided we take the list of
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Dan Diephouse wrote:
I am pretty philosophically against making every committer PPMC members.
I don't agree at all. If they contribute code, they merit a say in the
direction of the project. To do otherwise is to exclude them from the
community. Remember that
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
+1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
proposal.
This works for some proposals but not for others. Take Wicket for
example:
we would require all of the people who already had commit access to Wicket
re-prove
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where in:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
voting in
Please note. Today is October 1. Time to start getting the Board reports
posted. We will no longer hold the report pending late arrivals, at the
Board's insistence.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
something
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
voting in all of the
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Where in:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
voting
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing the
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am pretty philosophically against making every committer PPMC
members.
I don't agree at all. If they contribute code, they merit a say in the
direction of the project. To do otherwise is to exclude them from the
community. Remember
On 10/1/06, Andrus Adamchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Oct 1, 2006, at 12:57 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
oh yes: the LICENSE and NOTICE files are ok but the LICENSE file could
be improved by including an indication about to which artifact or
source file the particular
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:42 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
for example http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cayenne/main/
tags/2.0.1/cayenne/tutorials/quick-start/cayenne-tutorial/src/
cayenne/tutorial/Artist.java
looked to me like an example of a hand-crafted subclass.
This one was
On 10/1/06, Andrus Adamchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:42 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
for example http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cayenne/main/
tags/2.0.1/cayenne/tutorials/quick-start/cayenne-tutorial/src/
cayenne/tutorial/Artist.java
looked to me like an
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am pretty philosophically against making every committer PPMC
members.
I don't agree at all. If they contribute code, they merit a say in
the
direction of the project.
Are you reading Dan's statement as
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
then
stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in a
manner
you find offensive.
Why would the PMC not elect the people who contributed it further
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
-1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation, we
would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
access: that is completely unfair.
If we do not accept the people, we don't
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
then
stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in a
manner
you find offensive.
Why would the PMC not elect the people
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
-1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation,
we
would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
access: that is completely
Isn't there a rule that the community should be diverse, i.e. not
dependent on one company? How doesn't this affect the proposal's
initial list of committers/ppmc members?
Martijn
On 10/1/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am pretty philosophically against making every committer PPMC
members.
I don't agree at all. If they contribute code, they merit a say in
the
direction
Dan Diephouse wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am pretty philosophically against making every committer PPMC
members.
I don't agree at all. If they contribute code, they merit a say in
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place where the
Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved parties
believe
I just posted the new release snapshots here:
http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.1/
The changes from the first attempt are:
* Added license headers to the .dtd and .css files in the documentation.
* Added license headers to the tutorial Java files that are
changeable by users.
*
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code. -- justin
So are you suggesting we boot out a project like xxx? or are
you happy with incubator projects being fully open for companies
stacking their employees in to own a project?
On 10/1/06, Dan Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
would however encourage only voting people in after they an appropriate
level of committment and involvement with the project.
This creates a dividing line by omitting past contributions from the
discussion which I feel is inappropriate.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Justin has raised a concern that we not create an unfair or insulting
barrier existing, active. committers on communities joining the
ASF. Robert and I have independently expressed our views that this
won't do so.
-1. I think your response is extremely
On 10/1/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, if I were to work on a project for many months at Google Code
and then propose it to come here, why shouldn't I continue to have a say in
what the project does? Why do I need to justify myself all over again? Why
aren't my
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:01:31PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Yes, we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access
to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on the
verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
(binding)
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
48 matches
Mail list logo
