On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:32:02PM -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Spec process concerns (without voting):
> Mads, Leo
Let the record show the concerns are more broad than about a "spec
process". But, as my later rant hints at, I don't see a real reason
to cause any more stir about any of this *now*
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:32:02PM -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Spec process concerns (without voting):
> Mads, Leo
>
Mine would be a -1 if I was on the incubator PMC (but no thanks, I'd
rather not).
I don't find the excuse that a mistake has been made in the past
sufficient to repeat it. I'm als
The official vote closed three days ago, but I didn't want to close it
out while discussions were still going, especially when there were
binding -1s involved. While a -1 does not veto a proposal, it is
important to make sure that anyone who has a concern has had a chance
to make it heard or clar
+1 (non-binding).
-Adi
On 8/3/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this projec
al Message-
From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 7 August 2006 4:41 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Project Naming (was Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into
Incubator)
given the amount of upset caused by names, i think that we should
appoint
On 8/3/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please vote on the Glasgow proposal, as described below, which can
also be found at:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GlasgowProposal?action=recall&rev=1.
+1
i do have a few comments
i agree with the substance of a couple of important poi
> -Original Message-
> From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, 7 August 2006 4:41 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Project Naming (was Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator)
>
> given the amount of upset cau
On 8/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO the reason this naming debate hasn't been settled is because of the
way in which the change from Blaze to Glasgow was achieved: it was done
privately and the result was announced here.
hmm...sounds like we should have some docs that
On 8/5/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO the reason this naming debate hasn't been settled is because of the
way in which the change from Blaze to Glasgow was achieved: it was done
privately and the result was announced here.
+1
I can imagine how frustrating this must be
On Aug 4, 2006, at 08:31, Danny Angus wrote:
Hi everybody,
I don't have a binding vote here, but..
-1
I strongly object to the name, in some sense I object to this name
because it is also the name of the city in which I work, and
conversations about "Glasgow" will be a bit wierd.
But very m
IMO the reason this naming debate hasn't been settled is because of the
way in which the change from Blaze to Glasgow was achieved: it was done
privately and the result was announced here.
I can imagine how frustrating this must be to folks who are new to
Apache, but folks here don't like private
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
> for accepting the project for incubation.
Cliff, so it is not lost (I switched subjects to a discussion forum that,
oddly, you have not
On 8/4/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/4/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nor would I, as a mentor, ever allow any project to move through
> incubation without actively working to create such a community.
I have no doubt that this is the case, and if I said anyth
I understand that there are some specific circumstances in this case,
but in general I believe this sort of criteria is why we get
complaints that it's impossible to "innovate" at Apache any more. We
require all the grunt work of innovation to occur outside of Apache.
The issues of an open speci
On 8/4/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course everyone should make their own minds about this after a
careful reading of the threads (and may see things differently),
but
I wouldn't have agreed to champion the proposal if I had the sense
there was not a commitment to create
On 8/4/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/4/06, J Aaron Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/3/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
> > >
> > I very much a
Martin-
yes we solved it recently. But... the process of solving that is not
quite clear. I created an issue / task in JIRA for that.
I am only refering to the trademark issue; the rest was pretty easy,
the community voted on the name. We only ensured that no names with
*potential* trademark tro
Also if I recall correctly, naming issues can also be solved while in the incbuator... (like
adffaces has)
Mvgr,
Martin
Danny Angus wrote:
Archit,
I'm very happy to here you say so, I certainly don't want to affect
your progress through the incubator, in many ways I've unfairly sigled
you out
Archit,
I'm very happy to here you say so, I certainly don't want to affect
your progress through the incubator, in many ways I've unfairly sigled
you out as an example of a prectice I feel strongly about.
Unfortunately I will be away, offline, for the next four days, but if
it is still relevant
On 8/4/06, J Aaron Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/3/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
> >
> I very much agree with Garretts concerns - and would be much in favor of
> n
On 8/3/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
>
I very much agree with Garretts concerns - and would be much in favor of
not bringing the project into incubation before they have prov
The project formerly known as Blaze changed its name to Glasgow based on
previous feedback and decided to follow Apache precedent (e.g. Tuscany).
Apparently there are strong objections to this precendent. In our
discussions, the group did come up with some ingenious names for the
project, but m
general@incubator.apache.org
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: [VOTE]
On 04/08/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danny Angus wrote:
> I think it is about time that we grew up and introduced a rule which
> prevents words already used as proper nouns from being proposed as
> project names unless there is some real and relevant on-topic
> connection.
Just by w
On 04/08/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that these reasons would have been obvious if the discussion on
what to change the name to had happened in public...
Quite.
d.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROT
On 8/4/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danny Angus wrote:
> I think it is about time that we grew up and introduced a rule which
> prevents words already used as proper nouns from being proposed as
> project names unless there is some real and relevant on-topic
> connection.
Just by way
Danny Angus wrote:
I think it is about time that we grew up and introduced a rule which
prevents words already used as proper nouns from being proposed as
project names unless there is some real and relevant on-topic
connection.
Just by way of explanation, this name was proposed as (a) it is whe
Hi everybody,
I don't have a binding vote here, but..
-1
I strongly object to the name, in some sense I object to this name
because it is also the name of the city in which I work, and
conversations about "Glasgow" will be a bit wierd.
But very much more importantly I would also like to public
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
I'm not voting since I feel I haven't investigated this proposal in
enough detail, but I did have a general feeling of uneasyness, and now
Garrett has put some of that feeling into words w
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Finally, and I hate to say this because it may very well be just a
cultural difference between projects the Glasgow developers have
worked on and the way things work in ASF projects I'm familiar with, I
think it's disturbing that all answers to questions concerning this
prop
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 09:52 -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
> for accepting the project for incubation.
>
> Therefore, as the champion of this
-1
I think that this project is premature until the spec is in an open,
inclusive process or at an acceptable standards body with compatible
licensing terms. I would embrace this project were it so.
The project is supposed to be implementations of a "standard protocol"
but the protocol in questi
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
>
I very much agree with Garretts concerns - and would be much in favor of
not bringing the project into incubation before they have proven an
actual community and that they can work the s
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
I'm not in favor of the ASF endorsing a specification that seems to be
completely under the control of a small number of companies with no
way for new developers to participate in its development. The fact
that we have done this in the past is unfortun
discussion (which, I
admit, often doesn't happen).
Thanks,
Cliff
-Original Message-
From: "Coach Wei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:32:14
To:
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator
+1 (non binding) from me.
A question unrelated
+1
+1
--
jaaron
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
On Aug 3, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this project, I am calling a vote
discussion (which, I
admit, often doesn't happen).
Thanks,
Cliff
-Original Message-
From: "Coach Wei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:32:14
To:
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator
+1 (non binding) from me.
A question unrelated
+1
On 3 Aug 06, at 12:52 PM 3 Aug 06, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this project, I am calling
+1 (non binding) from me.
A question unrelated to voting: What is the possible (estimated) minimum
implementation footprint (in term of kilobytes or megabytes) to support
AMQP network wire-level protocol? I am asking this thinking of the
possibility of using AMQP protocol in mobile applications su
+1 (non-binding) from me.
Craig
On Aug 3, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this
+1 (non-binding) from me too
On 8/3/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 from me.
On 8/3/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
> for a
+1 from me.
On 8/3/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Therefore, as the champion of this project, I am call
44 matches
Mail list logo
