On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> To be clear, we where asking for a [VOTE] and not a [DISCUSS] - we
> wanted the vote to ratify our own vote on the subject. There was already
> a long discussion on general and the connectors mailing list - tons of
> discussion actually. At t
On 9/10/10 8:18 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> another small comment: if folks only like to get an opinion, then don't call
> a [VOTE] but instead a [DISCUSS] opinion poll.
>
> Because a vote is a vote is a vote...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
To be clear, we where asking for a [VOTE] and not a [DISCUSS] -
another small comment: if folks only like to get an opinion, then don't call a
[VOTE] but instead a [DISCUSS] opinion poll.
Because a vote is a vote is a vote...
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 9/10/10, James Carman wrote:
> From: James Carman
> Subject: Re: Role of Incubator PMC
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
>
> That vote is majority rules, so the IPMC could in effect overrule the
> project - the "preference/opinion" had already previously been
> gathered. In any case, I was using that instance to ask the broader
> question of why we (IPMC) get bin
ike it ;)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Thu, 9/9/10, James Carman wrote:
>
>> From: James Carman
>> Subject: Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 7:17 PM
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 14:11, Kalle Korhonen
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman
>>> wrote:
>>> I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
>>> sl
James can I interpret your statement that this would rather be a -0 or -0.1?
Stating that there is no veto but that you personally don't like it ;)
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 9/9/10, James Carman wrote:
> From: James Carman
> Subject: Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
&g
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 was a veto. If the
> IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like this. If you're
> only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then sure...
> definitely no problems with that!
>
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 14:11, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman
>> wrote:
>> I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
>> slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name,
We obviously want the opinion, but I would claim we are looking for an
opinion less on aesthetics and more on whether or not the incubator or the
board would have technical objections to this name choice. Would this
choice prevent graduation, for instance (in which case a -1 is certainly
warranted
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman wrote:
> I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
> slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then
> fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for an
Not only did we ask, we've asked more than once.
We're going that extra mile to call a vote to resolve this issue
specifically because there seems to be a wide range of opinion as to whether
the name is acceptable to the incubator, and by implication, the board.
It's quite clear that there's also
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a
> slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then
> fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside
> the podling to -1 that choice, and mig
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
>> Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
>> project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
>> IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
> project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
> IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to
> think through these things... in o
Presumably, the PMC's job is to be the eyes and ears of the Board, so if
project is doing something wrong, the PMC should let it know. In this case,
the project specifically is asking for guidance from the PMC as to whether the
name change is acceptable to the PMC and thus to the ASF, assuming
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:32 AM, James Carman wrote:
> name=trademark
Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the
project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the
IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to
think through these thing
name=trademark
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> I'm watching the "renaming" vote thread and I find it odd that folks
> are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and
> the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything
> other than ac
I'm watching the "renaming" vote thread and I find it odd that folks
are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and
the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything
other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC
should only be relevant
19 matches
Mail list logo
