On Feb 6, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Hi, Ate,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 02:33:11AM +0100, Ate Douma wrote:
What worries me a lot about the recent proposals, not only the text
above, is that project autonomy seems to be measured foremost by just
doing proper releases.
To me, Apach
Hi, Ate,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 02:33:11AM +0100, Ate Douma wrote:
> What worries me a lot about the recent proposals, not only the text
> above, is that project autonomy seems to be measured foremost by just
> doing proper releases.
>
> To me, Apache == Community over code.
The case I have be
On 6 February 2012 01:33, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 01:41 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:26:47PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> It might be worthwhile to require 3 ASF members on the initial release,
>>> 2 on the next, 1 on the following and then trus
On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
>>
>>
>> I fully agree the current Incubator has its issues, but radically killing it
>> off IMO will also kill off more than just those issues: it will also kill
>> the Incubator community it
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 01:41 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:26:47PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> It might be worthwhile to require 3 ASF members on the initial release,
>>> 2 on the next, 1 on the following and the
On 02/06/2012 01:41 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:26:47PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
It might be worthwhile to require 3 ASF members on the initial release,
2 on the next, 1 on the following and then trust the committee to follow
the established precedent.
+1
In