Since my post was mentioned later on this thread, I thought I would summarize
what I have as the take-away from intervening discussion. I have no intention
to deal with the use of language (i.e., semantics of "convenience") and the way
that tacit policy understanding is conveyed among Apache pr
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> AOO doesn't need to change anything to their current release processes
>> other than to stop pointing source downloads at svn (which is the sole
>> reason I won't vote for AOO candidates).
- Original Message -
> From: Dave Fisher
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> AOO doesn't need to change anything
On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> AOO doesn't need to change anything to their current release processes
> other than to stop pointing source downloads at svn (which is the sole
> reason I won't vote for AOO candidates).
Well this is worth discussion.
On this page [1]:
The sou
> Joe, I know very well (and you know that I know) that I can edit most of
> the things that appear on our web site. But if community-oriented means
> that anyone should just edit those docs to scratch an itch and to hell
> with consensus and the consequences, then you're right, I'm definitely a
>
Sigh. Apache is a volunteer organization with a history and a culture.
As a volunteer organization, it cannot possibly create and maintain a
set of documents that describe every bit of cultural norm and
historical context.
New committers on existing projects learn from their communities.
Podling m
Better attitude, now all you need to do is subscribe to site-...@apache.org
and join the rest of the people who care about the content of our site
documentation.
- Original Message -
> From: Branko Čibej
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:13 A
On 26.08.2012 17:04, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Waah Brane- obviously you're not as community-oriented
> as you'd like to think. release.html is the byproduct
> of several years of writing oriented towards the lowest
> common denominator of the org, but if you think you know
> how to improve it you hav
Waah Brane- obviously you're not as community-oriented
as you'd like to think. release.html is the byproduct
of several years of writing oriented towards the lowest
common denominator of the org, but if you think you know
how to improve it you have all the requisite karma already.
All that's miss
On 26.08.2012 16:46, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The point most people seem to make out of "sanctioned"
> or "official" builds revolves around indemnifying volunteers
> involved in the production of the release.
>
>
> I'm tired of rehashing release.html for the umpteenth time
> simply because Brane or yo
The point most people seem to make out of "sanctioned"
or "official" builds revolves around indemnifying volunteers
involved in the production of the release.
I'm tired of rehashing release.html for the umpteenth time
simply because Brane or you or some other newb lacks the
experience to know the
No. There is NO WAY IN HELL the org can indemnify
a volunteer who produces a binary build themselves.
Please don't bother asking legal-discuss to tackle this.
The way liability works in an incorporated volunteer
charity is that you are not liable for "club" activities
performed without negligenc
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.08.2012 13:15, Tim Williams wrote:
>> Marvin gave the link earlier in this thread. 4th para is the relevant bit.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>
> The relevant part is in the last paragraph. However, that says
> "conv
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.08.2012 13:15, Tim Williams wrote:
>> Marvin gave the link earlier in this thread. 4th para is the relevant bit.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>
> The relevant part is in the last paragraph. However, that says
> "conv
On 26.08.2012 13:15, Tim Williams wrote:
> Marvin gave the link earlier in this thread. 4th para is the relevant bit.
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
The relevant part is in the last paragraph. However, that says
"convenience" and defines version numbering requirements, but it does
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I can give the IPMC a hand here, if my point is too obscure. A policy
>>> might look like this:
>>>
>>> Resolved: An Apache pro
16 matches
Mail list logo
