Re: Digests in releases

Henk's scripting does that and much more. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:09 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > I thought that gpg does that. > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Dave Fisher > wrote: > > > Regardless of what Jane User knows, and we have 200 million

Re: Emailing images.

The attachment stripping feature in ezmlm is configurable by the infrastructure team on a per list basis. I believe the -x flag governs that feature. On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:57 PM James Bognar wrote: > Since images are lost on apache emails, what have other teams

Re: Incubator Governance Change

What exactly are we trying to achieve here? There is a record number of podlings in incubation and the best ideas so far are to shame more labor out of the people that are already overloaded. Sure that will work, as if burnout wasn't already a problem for mentors. What is the lesson for the

Re: Incubator Governance Change

Continuing down the road of blaming each other for the problem is stupid. Look the personnel is already ready, willing, and available to do the real vetting. All the IPMC has to do is recognize them and integrate them. On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

How many binding votes do you need at this point? On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM Pat Ferrel wrote: > +1 non-binding > > Next release we could exclude the doc site. Do build files like .sbt > require licenses? I suppose it can be done in comments. But again can we > push

Re: Incubator Governance Change

members have a duty to help with that gatekeeping > role. If they don’t, the extra burden falls on other IPMC members, and > podlings have a crappy experience. > > I don’t think two votes per year is too much to ask. If you’re not up to > it, resign from the IPMC. > > Julian

Re: Weex release needs votes, vetting, ++

How many binding votes do you lack? On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 3:40 AM Niclas Hedhman wrote: > The third RC is placed before the Incubator and hoping to get through the > door. > > Any takers? > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://polygene.apache.org -

Re: Incubator Governance Change

don’t, the extra burden falls on other IPMC members, and > podlings have a crappy experience. > > I don’t think two votes per year is too much to ask. If you’re not up to > it, resign from the IPMC. > > Julian > > > > > On Apr 22, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Joe Schaefer &l

Re: Incubator Governance Change

The traditional response to this issue is to grow the ipmc to incorporate more podling committers. On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:02 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > I agree that lack of IPMC votes is a problem. I don’t think that lowering > the bar to making a release is the solution. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

With regard to the second question I hope the ultimate decision still rests with Greg. This idea is fairly new and some baby steps are in order before opening the floodgates. IMO On Monday, November 7, 2016, Chris Mattmann wrote: > Hi, > > As some of you may have seen the

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

This saga jumped the shark right about the time Mary the sonnetor weighted in. On Thursday, November 26, 2015, Ralph Goers wrote: > Sorry Jim. As an attempt to shut down a thread, this wasn't a very good > one. Not a single poster in this thread has a problem with

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

Thank you Mary, and welcome aboard! You are an inspiration to others! On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Mary the sonnetor < marywantsalittlelamb...@gmail.com> wrote: > And another thing..it has no names so I do have a right for legal issues > and publication. > > inspirational laison > On 22

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Thank you Mary and welcome aboard! You are an inspiration for others! On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Mary the sonnetor < marywantsalittlelamb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm am in the process of learning all this fascinating tech things. That's > why I was looking at the different outputs. I'm so

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Completely agreed Todd about the irrelevance of these ad hoc assessments of something nobody actually questions. On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik > wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Come on folks it's not cut and dry. Httpd uses both without fuss about roles, trust, etc. This is a process issue much like the choice of version control tool you select, it really is not a big deal. On Wednesday, November 18, 2015, Dave Fisher wrote: > I see the

Re: Releases during incubation?

Subversion cut a release while in incubation on their old system. Shouldn't pose a problem for others. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > Hey folks, > > Hopefully quick policy question here: > > Once a project is under proposal for incubation, what is the

maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice document into a policy document. Rather, some people are finding it a useful guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be encouraged. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:35 PM, larry mccay

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

IIRC you Roman were on the list of "undersigned" ;-). It got shot down for many, many reasons. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

people indicate a binding status on it. That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really shouldn't matter what roles people have unless we need to be looking at a release. On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > This may sound a bit

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

rsity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++ > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM > To:

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

their own work. On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything here, > including past decisions. > Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we try to > move wit

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

list to see > how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics (big, > small, new, old) more frequently moving forward. > > Thanks, > Lenni > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Chris. S

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable of considering anything. Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC or the community, all of which requires some discussion over time about any position being taken. I would consider it unusual for the

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

of the PMC. I consider it a highly awkward situation when a Release Manager does not have a binding vote on their own damned release (well for a normal PMC). On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Chris. So what I'm saying is, instead of ad

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

a project, and personally meets my definition of "belongs on the PMC". On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Lenni. If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth, > he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the podling? I certainly think you've done the right thing by raising your concerns here and asking for a sanity check. On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand

Re: podlings and github

As Ted points out, so long as the prior github presence is effectively mothballed I don't see any problem with leaving it up for the foreseeable future. The main concern of mine and the membership involves podlings making active use of a github repo not under Apache's direct control. This

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

that certainly can be worked out hours after discovering the problem and filing the ticket. On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > Look at what we don't see- signs of dysfunction. Even with this thread, > with serious consequences for the podling, > nob

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

. On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <joes...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > David, > > > > The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don'

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

the presentation that discussions are happening off-Apache-infra and tickets are being "shut down" without public review. On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > The only thing I might recommend of the podling is to try to leave > low-hanging f

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

. The absence of inappropriate feedback is in fact a sign that we are not gauging things such as they actually are, but are projecting our own perceptions onto the project. On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > The whole point of the ASF's archiving policy is

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

. I do share the concern that we have several elected committers that haven't yet advanced to the ppmc level. Perhaps there's not enough project-level mentoring (as opposed to IMPC mentoring) going on to bring these newer people along. On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

David, The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid evidence to that effect. Certainly not on a systematic level. All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about repair-oriented tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies. I don't find credible

podlings and github

One of the concerns members are talking about with podlings on github concerns their overall presence there. To be brief, we need to take a closer look at any podlings that are using their own project on github versus using their clone on the apache github project. So that opens the question I

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable? Hard to tell what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic. On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Vinod Vavilapalli wrote: > Missed that part, that sounds really bad. > > +Vinod > > On Nov 2, 2015, at

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

nsure there > is a record and an action item. ML discussion isn't discouraged, but it can > be hard to follow multiple threads of discussion/resolution. > > Patrick > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Joe, can we see s

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

What we do here is practice open *development*. That means if it is a foregone conclusion that some jira ticket gets opened with a patch already cooked up for it, you're not doing it right. The entire development process needs to be subject to public scrutiny, not just the end result. On Mon,

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

on, Nov 2, 2015, at 08:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > On 11/02/2015 01:09 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > > > Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable? Hard to > tell > > > what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic. > > > > I'll (a

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

Just looked over Bertrand's document and I must say while I had high expectations Bertrand has managed to surpass them. That this is a functional and itemized list of details is just perfect- even better that there are citations and references along with it! Excellent job Bertrand! On Sat, Oct

Re: structural reform- division of labor

ould serve the org well. Docs are great, but they don't replace the personal touch. On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Joe Schaefer < joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > That's certainly a reasonable approach, but it doesn't quite capture what > I'm talking about when I mention

Re: structural reform- division of labor

, what is important is that we have them. On Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > ...Formally, that's all a working group needs to

Re: structural reform- division of labor

I apologize for the formatting, Y!'s html-only text munging is to blame. On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:26 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote: To be specific, what I have in mind is something like proposals@incubatordocs@incubatormen

Re: structural reform- division of labor

conversations between people working on similar subjects that don't want to burden this list with that sort of conversation. On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote: Elsewhere in the org several ideas have been floated

structural reform- division of labor

Elsewhere in the org several ideas have been floated around regardinggeneral reorganization and reform.  Things like possibly creating a newcommittee to oversee inbound and outbound podlings, or perhaps having the IPMC form such a subcommittee. I mention these notions not because I support

Re: structural reform- division of labor

To be specific, what I have in mind is something like proposals@incubatordocs@incubatormentoring@incubatorgraduation@incubatorreleases@incubator We probably don't need to start off with more subdivisions than that. On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:06 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_sc

seekable stdout test

ignore

testing auto moderation of committer emails

ignore please

ezmlm-gate -q test

ignore this

testing dmarc yahoo neutralization

ignore this message, it's for testing

test 2 y! munging

ignore this internal test

Y! invalidator

testing dmarc 

Re: Graduation resolution does not allow for committers != PMC

As a practical matter the tlp migration scripts seed the committer group from the list in asf-authorization for svn. The PMC is taken directly from the resolution, but if there is no corresponding group in svn (say UCB applies to the project) then the PMC chair has to seed the committer group

CMS improvements of late...

See http://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/scaling_down_the_cms_to for today's discussion of the Thrift migration to the CMS. Basically there was a support gap for moderately-sized sites that has now been filled with the latest changes to the cms build libs. HTH

Re: Podling new committer votes

It doesn't.  People were just being pedantic and untrusting of podling participants.  Committers have accounts, not formal standing in the org.  There is absolutely no reason for the IPMC to inject itself in a podling election of a new committer, so let's just leave oversight over the voting

personal expectations for ombudsman role

Now that things have settled down a bit, I'd like to talk about some of the things I'm looking for out of the ombudsman post. 1) proactively solicits opinions of exiting podlings    about their experiences in the form of interviews    and surveys. 2) make anonymized results of (1) available to

Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?

- Original Message - From: Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer? On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

Cmon folks, all we're looking for is an email alias and a descriptive title.  That's not *overhead* any more than Greg's novel position as Vice Chair is *overhead* to the board.  A title doesn't an officer make, there is no need to imbue Incubator Ombudsman with any power whatsoever, not even the

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

, Joe Schaefer wrote: Cmon folks, all we're looking for is an email alias and a descriptive title.  That's not *overhead* any more than Greg's novel position as Vice Chair is *overhead* to the board.  A title doesn't an officer make, there is no need to imbue Incubator Ombudsman with any

Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?

He said majority, not everybody ant. Try a little harder to understand the written words instead of needing to interject your dissonant 2 cents and things will improve around here. Anyway the point is that when you see multiple changes to an in-progress VOTE on a proposal, it suggests not that we

Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights

to in a Bill of Rights. - Original Message - From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights Joe, this is (in general) great. I feel I

Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights

- Original Message - From: Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org To: Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Joseph Schaefer

[DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights

Since I realize that most of you can't be bothered to look at the wiki page I created ;-), I'll go ahead and post the current content here for commentary.  I hope the bulk of it is non-controversial, though some of it may not belong on the page...

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

Yeah I get that, but I'm wondering what sort of power we'd impart to the position besides information gathering.  It might make an interesting complementary position to the chair that's more directly focused on the Incubator as it presents itself to podlings, which is something we recently

Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?

I'm with Alan on our penchant to solve people problems with reorganization.  We lack tangible means of measuring and recognizing that actual oversight is happening in these podlings.  And by that I mean that somebody is actually following along as the project develops and providing them with

Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?

What we really need for podlings is a bill of rights towards what they can expect of their mentors, because too few of them actually are willing to question the participation of the people who signed up to mentor them and that's not helping anybody. From: Alan

Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of PodlingBillOfRights by JoeSchaefer

Ok Alan I'm done hacking on the page for now. Have at it folks, if you so choose. From: Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org To: Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:52 PM Subject: [Incubator Wiki] Update of PodlingBillOfRights by

Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project

It'd help to know concretely what is meant by a probationary TLP, particularly what is different about it from normal incubation. I am not looking for yet another email discussion, but an URL to a wiki page would be nice. From: Ross Gardler

Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus

Yes your logic is flawed- what you are actually arguing for is majority voting not consensus voting, and bringing the criterion down from 100% to 75% only helps mitigate your concerns. As Doug points out, votes are structured away from the status quo- we don't ever vote to continue on with

Re: [PROPOSAL] Ivory - Hadoop data management and processing platform

Can we pretty-please do this *before* resources are requested, just to save us poor infra saps the trouble of renaming everything? From: Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:18 PM Subject: Re:

Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release

That's not your role as chair to be personally concerned about a project release- that's the group's responsibility.  You should confine your concerns to our efficacy and ability to carry out the role of an IPMC member properly. IOW relax, the outcome isn't going to sink the org one way or

Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews

than simply voting against a release, and that's what I'm pointing out here. - Original Message - From: Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com To: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com; general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 12:46 PM Subject

[DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews

One of my long time pet peeves with how we PMC members participate in vetting releases is our penchant for focusing too much on the policies surrounding license and notice info. I really think our exclusive focus on things that really don't pose any organizational risk to either the org nor the

Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews

vote on a release. From: Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing

Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews

: Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews Totally agree, Joe. Cheers

Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews

is IMO worthwhile. From: Sergio Fernández sergio.fernan...@salzburgresearch.at To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews

Re: Cloudstack report signoffs

May have simply been to indicate that there's new content in the report that needs to be processed by mentors.  I'm not worried about it personally. From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com To: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org;

Re: PPMC versus commiter

The thing to avoid is to wind up with a significant number of active contributors on a project who are not on the pmc. Separating committers from pmc members can be a symptom but it's manageable under the right conditions. Note committers aren't the only class of contributors that projects

Re: PPMC versus commiter

Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Is it a fight to state an opinion, when one has already been stated, Marvin? C'mon now. Fair's fair, you already got yours out so I have every right to get mine out. To your

Re: PPMC versus commiter

Marvin didn't even make his full point about Lucy- the fact is that all Apache committers have commit to Lucy. Putting them all on the pmc would be nuts in an entirely different way! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov

Re: PPMC versus commiter

and experience. I started this thread because I thought that a vote thread was not the best place to open the conversation with a particular podling about starting to distinguish C from PPMC. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Marvin didn't even

Re: PPMC versus commiter

there is a spectrum of opinion and experience. I started this thread because I thought that a vote thread was not the best place to open the conversation with a particular podling about starting to distinguish C from PPMC. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com

Re: PPMC versus commiter

That's just RBD's signature boilerplate for a document he likely started. Feel free to remove it if you think it detracts from the document. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Daniel Shahaf

Re: PPMC versus commiter

Shane actually wrote that page but I still hate the exclusionary draft label he picked up from rbd. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: That's the whole problem with Robert's labels, they scare people away from working on the document

How to use an apache webpage

to it in positive ways; ie the best documents wear well over time. HTH Sent from my iPhone On Dec 20, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Shane actually wrote that page but I still hate the exclusionary draft label he picked up from rbd. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19

Re: Incubator report reminders sent for Dec 2012

The hdt-dev@ list is the wrong address, which explains why the others are missing: reminders.pl is not expecting the new mailing list pattern. From: David Crossley cross...@apache.org To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 4:54 PM

Re: Incubator report reminders sent for Dec 2012

@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 6:31 PM Subject: Re: Incubator report reminders sent for Dec 2012 Joe Schaefer wrote: The hdt-dev@ list is the wrong address, which explains why the others are missing: reminders.pl is not expecting the new mailing list

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Mayhem proposal

No no no.  It's migrating from git to svn that we don't know how to do, going the other way is largely trivial with git-svn. From: Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, November

Re: [VOTE] Recommend to the Board to establish the Apache OpenOffice Project

+1 From: Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:00 PM Subject: [VOTE] Recommend to the Board to establish the Apache OpenOffice Project Seeing no objections to my last message, and keeping

Re: [VOTE] [PMC] Starting Membership for Apache OpenOffice PMC

No, just like Upayavira doesn't. From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] [PMC] Starting Membership for Apache OpenOffice PMC On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:58 PM,

Re: [VOTE] [PMC] Starting Membership for Apache OpenOffice PMC

-upayavira/1b/5a3/7a6 On 2 October 2012 10:13, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: No, just like Upayavira doesn't. Oh, I thought he was just a person-of-single-name, like a number of people I've met (often

Re: [VOTE] [PMC] Starting Membership for Apache OpenOffice PMC

://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/Upayavira 3 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dh-upayavira/1b/5a3/7a6 On 2 October 2012 10:13, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: No, just like Upayavira doesn't. Oh, I thought he was just a person

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

- Original Message - From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote Jim, Two points: 1: you skip over the liability question. Is Bill

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

Which better agrees with written policy anyway- the sigs are part of the release package to be voted on and voted on by the PMC, so even tho it constitutes individual sigs those sigs (well at least the RM's sig) are PMC-approved. - Original Message - From: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com

Re: downloading external dependencies outside of svn.apache.org

Many projects in a similar situation ship a deps package that contains dependencies and distribute those from the mirrors. HTH From: Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez juanpa...@apache.org To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 2:42 PM

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

missing is a clue. - Original Message - From: Branko Čibej br...@apache.org To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote On 26.08.2012 16:46, Joe Schaefer wrote: The point most people

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

, 2012 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote 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

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

- 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

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

Really, all this fuss over the LABELLING of a file being distributed does not add value to either the org, the podling, or the users of the software.  Nowhere is it written that you CANNOT DISTRIBUTE BINARIES, however it has always been clear that they are provided for the convenience of our

  1   2   3   4   5   >