On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
snip
I can give the IPMC a hand here, if my point is too obscure. A policy
might look
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 Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org 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
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org 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
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 negligence
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
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 you or some
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
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 have
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 br...@apache.org
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, August 26,
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
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
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
- Original Message -
From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net
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
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net 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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
