robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 5/28/07, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a friendly reminder. We're missing anoter IPMC vote ...
issues
---
i think that apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating.tar.gz has some
libraries in lib that are missing their LICENSE/NOTICE entries
The following vote has been open for 6 days, Here is the vote result to
add Arnuad
Simon to the Qpid project.
regards
Carl.
Vote results so far
15 +1 votes
1 0
No -1.
+1 votes
Cliff Schmidt
Paul Frematle
Alan Conway
Kevin Smith
Andrew Stitcher
Rajith Attapattu
Tomas Restrepo
Kim
Noel,
It has been a while since I posted this and the conversation has gone
cold. I'd like to get some consensus on what the PPMC's role is so
that we can update the documentation.
See embedded comments below.
On 11/04/07, Martin Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman
Martin Ritchie wrote:
I'd like to get some consensus on what the PPMC's role is so
that we can update the documentation.
On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PPMC has no standing within the ASF. It is a useful structure for the
Incubator, but the only binding votes
Upayavira wrote:
If your private@ list vote had three +1s from IPMC members (e.g.
your mentors), then IMO all you need to do is inform the IPMC of
the vote when complete.
Should probably notify the PMC at the time of the vote.
the request for an account should be sent by an IPMC member,
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
If your private@ list vote had three +1s from IPMC members (e.g.
your mentors), then IMO all you need to do is inform the IPMC of
the vote when complete.
Should probably notify the PMC at the time of the vote.
the request for an account
Carl Trieloff wrote:
A suggestion that one of our mentors had made to us was to do a poll for
concerns on the private list to see if PPMC was happy with the committer
to be added to the project (notice and to see if any of PPMC have
concerns). If all went well on the PPMC list, the
On 5/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IPMCers, the Apache Tuscany project asks your permission to release the
Tuscany Java SCA 0.90-incubating release.
The tuscany-dev list vote for the release passed with 7 +1s:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg18279.html
The
To clear things up, add my +1 to the vote. Arnaud's activity in the
JIRA looks good.
Watch the '0 votes' bit. Normally we take that to mean a +0, so the
immediate question is Why did Yoav not want to vote +1?, but I think
you meant that he hadn't voted. Plus what Noel just said.
Hen
On
On 5/29/07, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IPMCers, the Apache Tuscany project asks your permission to release the
Tuscany Java SCA 0.90-incubating release.
The tuscany-dev list vote for the release passed with 7 +1s:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
A suggestion that one of our mentors had made to us was to do a poll for
concerns on the private list to see if PPMC was happy with the committer
to be added to the project (notice and to see if any of PPMC have
concerns). If all went well on
On 5/29/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/29/07, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IPMCers, the Apache Tuscany project asks your permission to release the
Tuscany Java SCA 0.90-incubating release.
The tuscany-dev
On 5/29/07, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 5/28/07, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a friendly reminder. We're missing anoter IPMC vote ...
issues
---
i think that apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating.tar.gz has some
libraries
Yoav Shapira wrote:
On 5/29/07, Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always thought (and the documentation at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
binding. There were plenty of PPMC +1 votes without my vote. If I'm
wrong, it (a) sucks because other PPMC
Hey,
On 5/29/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vote results so far
15 +1 votes
1 0
No -1.
Yes, but I only see two +1 that are binding:
Cliff Schmidt
Paul Frematle
Did I miss a third? A few of us have been reviewing the vote summary and
thread today, and none of
Hey,
On 5/29/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They've put the onus on the IPMC to oversee and conduct all incubating
projects. In practice, that means the IPMC puts their weight behind
the PPMC members' decisions. Practically speaking, unless something
is horribly wrong with
Yoav Shapira wrote:
That's not true. Practically speaking, mentors may not have time to
review an issue that other PPMC members have had plenty of time to
review and vote upon.
That's true, but we are overseeing their -process- not always the
details. I have a great deal of confidence in
+1 from me.
thanks,
dims
On 5/29/07, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/29/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/29/07, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IPMCers, the Apache Tuscany project asks your
Nice graphics, tying in several of the key items and time lines. I
like it.
Craig
On May 28, 2007, at 6:52 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
I've created a schedule for graduation:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dashorst/517816086/
Is this accurate, and can it be used in the graduation guide?
Yoav Shapira wrote:
I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
contributions.
+1 != +0
I always thought (and the documentation at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
binding.
It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 07:15, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
LEGALLY PPMC votes mean zilch; this is because the board did not charter
or compose the PPMC, doesn't decompose it, doesn't even oversee it per say.
And a majority of decisions within a (P)PMC has no legal
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 12:42, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Mmm - bzzz - that's incorrect. You'll recall you signed a legally binding
document to become a committer?
H... Now when you mention it, it is actually quite interesting.
First of all the ICLA is not a contract (from the little I
22 matches
Mail list logo
