Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Beam, version 0.2.0-incubating

Thanks very much Justin for your attention to detail! I've filed BEAM-510, BEAM-513, BEAM-514, BEAM-515 for the website issues you pointed out below, and I've sent PRs for 510 & 513. Though it may be obvious, I'll remind everyone that these proposed changes to the incubator-beam-site repository

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:02 AM Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 8/1/16, 6:52 PM, "Christopher" wrote: > > >> My recommendation is that fluo.io be donated to the ASF and a new > domain > >> name chosen for the non-ASF community backed site. > >> > > > >We'll need

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On 8/1/16, 6:52 PM, "Christopher" wrote: >> My recommendation is that fluo.io be donated to the ASF and a new domain >> name chosen for the non-ASF community backed site. >> > >We'll need to discuss this further, but I think our preferred option is >going to be (in order

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

Thanks John, please see comments below: > On Aug 1, 2016, at 5:30 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:24 PM Kam Kasravi > wrote: > >> Would you suggest we wait on the dev@ vote then? > > I can only point you to ASF

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

I recommend the Fluo PPMCs to go back and work it out with trademarks and the Mentors of the podling. Even some of top level projects have problems regarding their trademarks, and the incubator should be the place to learn what is needed to learn how to protect the project trademarks. Good luck

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:09 PM John D. Ament wrote: > Ok, now I'm a bit confused. I'll try my best to state my points of > clarification in line. > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM Christopher wrote: > > > I also wish to point out that the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Beam, version 0.2.0-incubating

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - file name contains incubating - signature and hash good - LICENSE and NOTICE good. (Although not 100% sure why the NOTICE mentions google twice) - No binary files in release - All source code has ASF headers - Can compile from source Just a few minor things I

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Ok, now I'm a bit confused. I'll try my best to state my points of clarification in line. On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM Christopher wrote: > I also wish to point out that the FluoProposal ( > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/FluoProposal) explicitly included an >

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

I also wish to point out that the FluoProposal ( http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/FluoProposal) explicitly included an intent/wish/request to continue using the Fluo logo (which includes the name) on Fluo's historical sites. That proposal was accepted by the IPMC (albeit without an explicit

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Hi, > The question of trademarks and groupIds has come up before ( > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/24c6270458faf64da351027cde5c74e935d6b5760b511b4e2f0c6b98@1388455319@%3Cprivate.accumulo.apache.org%3E), > but in those circumstances, the conflict was much more direct (reuse of the >

[CANCEL][VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Consider this vote canceled, until we can work through some of the issues identified in the thread. On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 2:14 PM Christopher wrote: > In preparation for a 1.0.0-incubating release of Fluo, the Fluo team is > first separately releasing a parent POM. This

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 6:22 PM Craig Russell wrote: > Hi Christopher, > > > On Aug 1, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Christopher wrote: > > > > Why would this be a concern for http://fluo.io, but not sites like > > http://www.stratahadoopworld.com/ or

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Hi Christopher, > On Aug 1, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Christopher wrote: > > Why would this be a concern for http://fluo.io, but not sites like > http://www.stratahadoopworld.com/ or http://accumulosummit.com/ which are > related to the ASF project, but clearly not owned or

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:32 PM Craig Russell wrote: > > Apache will not allow an independent organization to use an Apache brand > name outside the brand guidelines. > > I think the relevant portion is in http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#domains: "You may not use

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:23 PM John D. Ament wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:21 PM Christopher wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:50 PM John D. Ament > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:29 AM Keith Turner

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

> On Aug 1, 2016, at 2:22 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:21 PM Christopher wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:50 PM John D. Ament >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:29 AM Keith Turner

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:24 PM Kam Kasravi wrote: > Would you suggest we wait on the dev@ vote then? > I can only point you to ASF documented policy. Explicit call out to the 72 hour rule (and why):

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:21 PM Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:50 PM John D. Ament > wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:29 AM Keith Turner wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John D. Ament

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Mnemonic-0.2.0-incubating [rc3]

+1 (binding) [ forwarding my +1 from Mnemonic dev list vote ] Regards, Uma On 7/29/16, 2:43 PM, "Gary" wrote: >Hello incubator PMC, > >The Apache Mnemonic community has voted and approved the proposal to >release Apache Mnemonic 0.2.0 (incubating). > >Apache Mnemonic is an

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Mnemonic-0.2.0-incubating [rc3]

Forward my VOTE from dev@ list +1 (binding) On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Gary wrote: > Hello incubator PMC, > > The Apache Mnemonic community has voted and approved the proposal to > release Apache Mnemonic 0.2.0 (incubating). > > Apache Mnemonic is an advanced hybrid

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:50 PM John D. Ament wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:29 AM Keith Turner wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John D. Ament > > wrote: > > > I'm -1 until the website issues are resolved. > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 11:14 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > No it doesn’t put the files in the mirrors. [6] The dev area is not > mirrored. You can release them with a simple svn move command. > Since the policy allows for the use of the staging repositories at

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Legacy release issues look better. On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:38 AM Mike Walch wrote: > Thanks for reviewing the Fluo website. I created a pull request to fix > some of the issues you brought up. > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-fluo-website/pull/9 > > Does this

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:29 AM Keith Turner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > I'm -1 until the website issues are resolved. > > > > - Make sure its clear that any existing releases are not apache endorsed. > > - Make

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:37 AM John D. Ament wrote: > I'm -1 until the website issues are resolved. > > - Make sure its clear that any existing releases are not apache endorsed. > - Make sure the website points to resources contained within the ASF, e.g. > fluo-dev is a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

Would you suggest we wait on the dev@ vote then? > On Aug 1, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > I did also mention that 72 hours is a minimum. :-) > >> On Aug 1, 2016, at 6:52 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote: >> >> Thanks John, we

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Beam, version 0.2.0-incubating

+1 (binding) casting my vote here as IPMC. I checked: - artefact names contain incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE file looks good - NOTICE file looks good - Source files have ASF headers - source distribution exists - Tested with GDELT samples and wordcount

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Thanks for reviewing the Fluo website. I created a pull request to fix some of the issues you brought up. https://github.com/apache/incubator-fluo-website/pull/9 Does this address your concerns? Feel free to comment/review the pull request on GitHub. On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:37 AM John D.

RE: Help Wanted for Potential Projects

There is no relocation needed. There are alternatives such as Asana, Skype, or Microsoft Lync. I am sure we could find a way through there. I have a Scrum board currently at SeeNowDo.com. Are you interested in the project? Would you like to take a look at the SRS and SDS? I would like to be

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

I did also mention that 72 hours is a minimum. :-) > On Aug 1, 2016, at 6:52 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote: > > Thanks John, we usually do. Andy suggested under certain circumstances (in > this case minor LICENSE corrections culled from general@ comments for RC4) > there

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > I'm -1 until the website issues are resolved. > > - Make sure its clear that any existing releases are not apache endorsed. > - Make sure the website points to resources contained within the ASF, e.g. > fluo-dev is a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

Thanks John, we usually do. Andy suggested under certain circumstances (in this case minor LICENSE corrections culled from general@ comments for RC4) there have been past examples where the voted period had been expedited. Earlier RC releases provided 3 day voting periods. > On Aug 1, 2016, at

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

I'm -1 until the website issues are resolved. - Make sure its clear that any existing releases are not apache endorsed. - Make sure the website points to resources contained within the ASF, e.g. fluo-dev is a bit of an oddity same for zetten. - Make sure that io.fluo is either replaced, or has a

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Mnemonic-0.2.0-incubating [rc3]

+1 release contents look good. On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:43 PM Gary wrote: > Hello incubator PMC, > > The Apache Mnemonic community has voted and approved the proposal to > release Apache Mnemonic 0.2.0 (incubating). > > Apache Mnemonic is an advanced hybrid memory storage

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

You should wait at least 3 days (72 hours) for a vote, even on a dev thread. John On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:26 AM Kam Kasravi wrote: > Hi IPMC Community > > The PPMC vote to release Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 has passed > successfully. > We would like to now

[VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

Hi IPMC Community The PPMC vote to release Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 has passed successfully. We would like to now submit this release candidate to the IPMC. The PPMC vote thread is here:

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > Looking a bit further the the Apache Fluo web site I see a couple of > concerning things, but presumably this is part of a ongoing effort and will > be sorted out before graduation: > - It seems the main