On Sep 27, 2006, at 1:17 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
issues addressed in this release:
1. updated proposal included
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
3. OASIS issue addressed
Thanks Ian.
+1,
Leo
[ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this
I still have a concern about the notification requirement on the OASIS IP
FAQ, but that can be resolved during Incubation.
And, yes, we've seen the vote result. :-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:09:24PM +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
I hope I get this part of process correct.
a reference to the results of the vote (so as to provide an audit
trail for the records)
Vote Tally:
3 binding votes (all +1)
5 non binding votes (all +1)
Could you please list who
On 03/10/2006, at 7:32 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:09:24PM +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
I hope I get this part of process correct.
a reference to the results of the vote (so as to provide an audit
trail for the records)
Vote Tally:
3 binding votes (all +1)
5 non binding
I didn't specify as such with my vote, but I believe my +1 was
binding as well.
Erik
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 03/10/2006, at 7:32 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:09:24PM +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
I hope I get this part of process
Cool.
and Ken's makes 5 binding votes.
On 03/10/2006, at 10:18 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
I didn't specify as such with my vote, but I believe my +1 was
binding as well.
Erik
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 03/10/2006, at 7:32 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Oct
I hope I get this part of process correct.
a reference to the results of the vote (so as to provide an audit
trail for the records)
Vote Tally:
3 binding votes (all +1)
5 non binding votes (all +1)
a reference to the Candidate's proposal can be found here: http://
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
(binding)
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/26/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
As before. -- justin
On 9/27/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
thanks - much better.
but i don't see at all in terms of explaining it to laypersons. a
project that cannot explain itself clearly in a paragraph doesn't
understand itself.
[X] +1
+1
On Sep 26, 2006, at 7:17 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
issues addressed in this release:
1. updated proposal included
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
3. OASIS issue addressed
[ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
-ehn
Ian Holsman wrote:
issues addressed in this release:
1. updated proposal included
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
3. OASIS issue addressed
[ ] +1
of projects can build benefits on it.
Hervé
-Original Message-
From: Ian Holsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: mercredi 27 septembre 2006 01:18
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [Vote] accept UIMA as a podling - #2
issues addressed in this release:
1. updated proposal included
2
issues addressed in this release:
1. updated proposal included
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
3. OASIS issue addressed
[ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
8---Proposal--8--
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
Otis
- Original Message
From: Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:17:37 PM
Subject: [Vote] accept UIMA
On 9/26/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
+1 (non binding)
-Yonik
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
On Sep 19, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you're right. Others have noted that our opening paragraphs are not
very clear. We did however follow up with more explanation that
satisfied others on the list. Are you saying that these
On 9/20/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
The only mistake here is the initial proposal might have assumed that
people had a understanding of the topic area.
this is why in the draft guide
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html splitting the initial
proposal into
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well
in and of itself. My objection
On 9/18/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as per Garrett's suggestion.
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
My only condition for acceptance is that someone explain UIMA to me
over beer at AC. =)
Good
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
snip
My only condition for acceptance is that someone explain UIMA to me
over beer at AC. =)
Good luck! -- justin
I'm planning on attending AC (Wednesday thru Friday), and would love to
explain UIMA to all that are interested!
-- Marshall Schor
On 9/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The proposal can be found in the Incubator wiki here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UIMA
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You want to request a vote, you include
the proposal in the e-mail. OK, I'll admit, I've seen the follow up
Hi,
When we requested OASIS to set up a Technical Committee chartered to
develop a platform-independent specification for text and multi-modal
analysis, we specified that it be set up under the RF on Limited Terms
mode of the OASIS IP Policy. RF means Royalty Free, and the Limited
Terms
David Ferrucci wrote:
we specified that [UIMA] be set up under the RF on Limited Terms
mode of the OASIS IP Policy.
RF on Limited Terms specifies the exact Royalty Free licensing
terms and conditions that may be included in a patent holder's
license and that must be granted upon request
Garrett Rooney wrote:
snip
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting
any potential podling that can't explain what it is that they do
within the first paragraph of the proposal. I'm a fairly intelligent
person, but honestly I have no clue what an architecture and
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you're right. Others have noted that our opening paragraphs are not
very clear. We did however follow up with more explanation that
satisfied others on the list. Are you saying that these further
explanations are still not clear, or that those
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The notification clause mentioned in the FAQ has been considered an issue
for the ASF, as it passes that obligation to downstream consumers of our
code. Does that apply to UIMA?
I looked in the FAQ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php but
didn't see the
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
snip
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting
any potential podling that can't explain what it is that they do
within the first paragraph of the proposal. I'm a fairly intelligent
person, but
Marshall Schor wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The notification clause mentioned in the FAQ has been considered an
issue
for the ASF, as it passes that obligation to downstream consumers of our
code. Does that apply to UIMA?
I looked in the FAQ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well
in and of itself. My objection isn't just your proposal is unclear,
it's also in part that
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well
in and of itself. My objection
On 20/09/2006, at 6:52 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
what the project does in the mailing list discussion
On 9/19/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I look at some of the enterprise java proposals and have
no clue about them either
as i don't track the SOA/WS specs that closely.
Yes, and that's a BAD thing. If this proposal was for some
j2ee/WS/SOA related monstrosity with 98
Message
From: Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:09:34 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 9/19/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I look at some of the enterprise java proposals and have
Hi,
There has been some discussion around the UIMA proposal,
we feel that all the issues forwarded have been addressed, and we
would now like to officially propose UIMA to the Incubator for
consideration.
The proposal can be found in the Incubator wiki here:
On 9/18/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
There has been some discussion around the UIMA proposal,
we feel that all the issues forwarded have been addressed, and we
would now like to officially propose UIMA to the Incubator for
consideration.
The proposal can be found in the
This one works much better http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UimaProposal
Hervé
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Rooney
Sent: lundi 18 septembre 2006 22:48
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA
On 9/18/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[X] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting
any potential podling that can't explain what it is that
: Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 5:11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 9/18/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[X] -1 Reject this proposal
connect to wiki.apache.org at the moment to see the final
proposal for myself).
Otis
- Original Message
From: Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 5:11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 9/18/06, Ian
The proposal can be found in the Incubator wiki here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UIMA
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You want to request a vote, you include
the proposal in the e-mail. OK, I'll admit, I've seen the follow up e-mail
where you did post the proposal in response to
41 matches
Mail list logo
