Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

While I am completely agree with your point, and the Ignite graduation is the water under the bridge, this is in an important point for the current podlings to consider. Perhaps it could be done elsewhere as well, but I am not sure where would be the best place for it. Thoughts? Thanks, Cos --

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

Is the use of Google Analytics also prohibited by #4? -Alex On 6/5/17, 8:16 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: >On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: >> Thanks for the

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

While these are all great discussion points, I don't believe they're relevant to incubator only and probably should have remained on the legal-discuss list. Ignite graduated ~2 years ago. The incubator probably doesn't have an opinion about this, but it's good to know that the policy may change

Contents of Podling Status Tracking

As a follow up to my prior question, ( https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/31119aafbc4260720d222666f3efd01f2fe2975e424039ea539c9cb6@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E ). Looking at our current tracking file for podlings, I wonder how much of the information is useful. Let's use Traffic Control

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > Thanks for the explanation, Roman. I had no idea that policies for hosted > binaries > were stricter than for source code (other than the obvious effect on > licensing when you bundle in dependencies). Btw, this one is

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.1-incubating (RC0)

I generally agree with Sebb's sentiments. Its confusing that you list a downloads page, but it's not listed (though I feel its better that its not shown based on last release's issues). For next release, I would like the output artifact to be "apache-trafficcontrol-VERSION-incubating" (think

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

Thanks for the explanation, Roman. I had no idea that policies for hosted binaries were stricter than for source code (other than the obvious effect on licensing when you bundle in dependencies). Julian > On Jun 5, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > On Mon,

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

Hi all, Am .06.2017, 04:47 Uhr, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik : On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: If the binaries are built from the released source code I don’t think we should restrict what the binaries do. Well, but that's not how we

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

Thanks Greg. I have already started the conversation on private@ignite and opened IGNITE-5413 -- Take care, Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > If the binaries are built from the released source code I don’t think we > should restrict what the binaries do. Well, but that's not how we treat licensing for example. For example -- there's plenty of ASF project that

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

The Infrastructure team is taking this to the Apache Ignite PMC. This is completely improper. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > If the binaries are built from the released source code I don’t think we > should restrict what the binaries do. The question is

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

If the binaries are built from the released source code I don’t think we should restrict what the binaries do. The question is whether the community is aware of what the code is doing, and considers it to be in the best interests of the project. The answer seems to be yes, and yes. I saw that

ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

Hi! after seeing this thread on legal-discuss: https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201706.mbox/%3CCAGJoAUn-hiE89mWObh1Lb2S_vgqQJ%3DDC%3D1P_V1REQ9hUERCFog%40mail.gmail.com%3E I'd like to ask a policy related question. What we currently have is a whole bunch of

Re: [NOTICE] Community Vote for Apache Atlas Graduation to TLP

Suma, One more thing. I cannot find a podling name search on file for Atlas. Has this been done? See also [1] John [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html#name-search On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:45 PM John D. Ament wrote: > Hi Suma, > > Thanks for the heads

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.1-incubating (RC0)

On 5 June 2017 at 23:20, Dan Kirkwood wrote: > Thanks for that feedback -- I'll make sure our release instructions > are clear on those points and remove users@ from any future votes. > >> The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts, >> signatures/checksums, and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.1-incubating (RC0)

Thanks for that feedback -- I'll make sure our release instructions are clear on those points and remove users@ from any future votes. > The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts, > signatures/checksums, and updated documentation) can be found here: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.1-incubating (RC0)

On 5 June 2017 at 22:12, Dan Kirkwood wrote: DROPPED user@ list - see below. > Hello Incubator PMC, > > The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a > proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.1-incubating. We now > kindly request that the Incubator

Re: [VOTE] - Approve the release of Apache Joshua incubating 6.1 (rc4)

Please see the following issue folks https://github.com/redpony/cdec/issues/94 Thanks Lewis On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:46 AM, lewis john mcgibbney wrote: > Hi Justin, > Excellent catch. Thank you for rebiewing the RC... it is really helping us > out. > To answer your question,

Re: [VOTE] - Approve the release of Apache Joshua incubating 6.1 (rc4)

Hi Justin and Tommaso, I'll register and issue over on the cdec repository and ping the contributors over there. I'll cross-reference the outcome here and hopefully we can move forward. Lewis On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:46 AM, lewis john mcgibbney wrote: > Hi Justin, >

[VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.1-incubating (RC0)

Hello Incubator PMC, The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.1-incubating. We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this incubator release. The VOTE RESULT is here:

Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Livy to enter Apache Incubator

Hi, I am sorry I was off email when all of this happened. Would like to add my post result +1 to join everyone in supporting this effort! Thanks! Bikas From: Sean Busbey Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 10:34:45 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org

Re: Request for write access to Apache Incubator Wiki

Thanks a bunch, Nick! +Vinod > On Jun 3, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nick Burch wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: >> I just volunteered to be a mentor for the Apache Slider incubator project. >> Please grant me write access to Apache Incubator Wiki. >

Re: [NOTICE] Community Vote for Apache Atlas Graduation to TLP

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Suma Shivaprasad wrote: > Thanks Sam. Have added the rest of the PPMC/committers. Cool! For future reference, you can click on + multiple times to queue up additions, and then add them all at once. Also, take a look at the "Draft

Re: [NOTICE] Community Vote for Apache Atlas Graduation to TLP

Thanks Sam. Have added the rest of the PPMC/committers. Suma On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Suma Shivaprasad > wrote: > > > > > Once the issues are rectified, will work with one of the

[RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Livy to enter Apache Incubator

With 7 binding +1 votes (and 14 non-binding +1 votes), this vote passes. Thanks for everyone who took the time to vote! I'll coordinate with the mentors to start the initial paperwork today. (And we'd be thrilled for the 4th mentor JB!) binding: Larry McCay Jean-Baptiste Onofré Luciano

Re: [VOTE] Apache HTrace 4.3.0 incubating release (rc3)

+1 binding, though the license and notice have room for improvement signature and checksums are good tarball matches the git tag disclaimer is good builds from git tag unit tests pass overall the license and notice appear to reflect the contents of the source release, with the following notes that

Re: [DISCUSS] Migration of Podling Maintenance Tooling to Whimsy

+1 It moves us towards a self-service (dare I say “github-like”) experience for podlings, and that is always good. Furthermore, if there are choices to be made (e.g. svnpubsub vs. CMS) I think the tooling should strongly encourage them to take the “standard” option. Maybe it doesn’t even

Re: Images in source code.

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 6:12 PM, James Bognar wrote: > ...The reason I asked is because we've previously been asked about ownership > of image files during release votes, so I wasn't sure if we were supposed > to mark them somehow... You could create a ticket in your

Re: [DISCUSS] Migration of Podling Maintenance Tooling to Whimsy

+1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC5

Hi all, I'm calling a vote for Weex-incubating 0.12.0-RC5 release. The changes fix problems pointed out by John D. Ament and Justin Mclean in RC4 voting thread[1]. Thanks to these guys. And thanks to people who vote +1 too. Hope this RC would finally passed. The PPMC vote for this release has

Re: [VOTE] - Approve the release of Apache Joshua incubating 6.1 (rc4)

Hi, Not to be a pain but I still don't think that quite explains the "All rights reserved” comment. Just because these files were added to a repo that is under an Apache license (by someone other than the author I would note) doesn't automatically mean the original files were Apache licensed.