On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 25/01/2013 Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>>>
>>> What about Apache OpenOffice?
>>
>> I asked this question about Open Office, and I got, more or less, what
>> I typed in above. I
On 25/01/2013 Benson Margulies wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
What about Apache OpenOffice?
I asked this question about Open Office, and I got, more or less, what
I typed in above. I was puzzled, but there you have it. As I recall,
Roy made a remark like 'our r
Hey Benson,
I agree with Joe - not sure that your job as Incubator VP is to drop any
hammers.
The org is fine -- the ticket is opened as you said and no bits (binary or
source) have been shipped anywhere yet. Still discussing and talking. My
fear though is that the discussing and talking are endl
k the
org one way or another ;-).
>
> From: Benson Margulies
>To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
>Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>
>Chris et al,
>
>I'
Chris et al,
I'm suffering from a mild crisis of responsibility here. I'm the VP of
the incubator. cTakes is planning to ship a release containing
something that, according to some lights, is inadmissible. If that
'something' is in *the (source) release*, I have serious qualms. If
it's merely in a
Hi Guys,
On 1/25/13 10:29 AM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
[...snip...]
>>>
>> Sorry, that's really what I meant: to think about that file as to
>>whether it
>> can do any harm and how to determine its safety. I haven't looked at
>>the
>> file, but it sounds like you know it can do harm.
>
>Depend
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/25/13 10:20 AM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/25/13 8:28 AM, "Chen, Pei" wrote:
>>>
I am actually glad that it is discussed here so that other podlings
On 1/25/13 10:20 AM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/13 8:28 AM, "Chen, Pei" wrote:
>>
>>> I am actually glad that it is discussed here so that other podlings or
>>> future
>>> podlings are aware of these fundamental ite
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/25/13 8:28 AM, "Chen, Pei" wrote:
>
>> I am actually glad that it is discussed here so that other podlings or future
>> podlings are aware of these fundamental items (since not everyone may
>> subscribe to legal-discuss).
>>
>> Is t
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that icons, gifs, jpgs are ok in both source and binary
> dists. My mental model for source dists is whether the file can do any harm
> and what the developer would do to verify its safety. For icons, gifs,
> jpgs, I would load
On 1/25/13 8:28 AM, "Chen, Pei" wrote:
> I am actually glad that it is discussed here so that other podlings or future
> podlings are aware of these fundamental items (since not everyone may
> subscribe to legal-discuss).
>
> Is this philosophy or policy also true for parts of a code base tha
iv.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:52 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (38
On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> Hi Benson,
>>
>> On 1/24/13 7:23 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>>
>>> It's unfortunate to have this conversation in parallel here and on
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ji
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Benson,
>
> On 1/24/13 7:23 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>
>>It's unfortunate to have this conversation in parallel here and on
>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-157.
>>
>>Also, this thread is a combo of the discus
Hi Benson,
On 1/24/13 7:23 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>It's unfortunate to have this conversation in parallel here and on
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-157.
>
>Also, this thread is a combo of the discussion of ordinary
>jars-of-classes (where I'd forgotten the policy) and the m
ncubator.apache.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Chris Douglas
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:45 AM
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: ctakes-...@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>&g
It's unfortunate to have this conversation in parallel here and on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-157.
Also, this thread is a combo of the discussion of ordinary
jars-of-classes (where I'd forgotten the policy) and the much more
tangled question of models, which is what the JIRA is wr
On 25.01.2013 01:50, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> On 21.01.2013 21:08, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> ...>>
I am referring to this discussion http://s.apache.org/MUZ
>>> Well, that clear enough, even if it is a typical example of how our
>>> foun
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.01.2013 21:08, Benson Margulies wrote:
> ...>>
> >> I am referring to this discussion http://s.apache.org/MUZ
> > Well, that clear enough, even if it is a typical example of how our
> > founders yell at us but we have no mechanism to c
: general-return-39351-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org
>> [mailto:general-return-39351-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org]
>> On Behalf Of Chris Douglas
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:45 AM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: ctak
On 21.01.2013 21:08, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Franklin
> wrote:
>> On Monday, January 21, 2013, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> Matt, can you reference the policy that category A deps can't be
>>> sitting in svn in binary? Of course, these folks can learn to
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> Well, that clear enough, even if it is a typical example of how our
> founders yell at us but we have no mechanism to channel those yells
> into concise, unambiguous, documentation.
+1, I've felt that as well.
FWIW, I think the material
On 01/23/2013 05:20 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
As for the binaries, I am personally uncomfortable if you cannot even
create a private download of those sources accessible to community
members. However, I don't know how to translate my personal discomfort
into policy. I will endeavour to get some
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: ctakes-...@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Jörn Kottmann
>> wrote:
>> > No, the OpenNLP did not have any discussion abo
1-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org]
> On Behalf Of Chris Douglas
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:45 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: ctakes-...@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:47
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> No, the OpenNLP did not have any discussion about it with legal. We just
> came to the conclusion
> that its not worth spending time on these issues, when we can instead
> produce our own training
> data which is compatible with the Apache l
On 01/23/2013 09:24 AM, Chris Douglas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
>Another question about the convenience binary -- can it include the models for
which the training data cannot be shared with the community?
My guess would be no, but it sounds like the OpenN
-Original Message-
>> From: Masanz, James J.
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 11:16 AM
>> To: 'general@incubator.apache.org'
>> Cc: 'ctakes-...@incubator.apache.org'
>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>>
&g
mes Masanz
> -Original Message-
> From: Masanz, James J.
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 11:16 AM
> To: 'general@incubator.apache.org'
> Cc: 'ctakes-...@incubator.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>
&g
.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>
> On 01/22/2013 12:48 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Masanz, James J.
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Many of the models are derived from data that is not publ
On 01/22/2013 12:48 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
>
>Many of the models are derived from data that is not publicly released. But
those*models* have been contributed to Apache cTAKES.
>
>This is the primary mechanism for distribution of th
gt;> On Behalf Of Chris Douglas
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 4:36 PM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>>
>> Infra asks for a "heads up" for large artifacts:
>> http://s.apache.org/5vz
-Original Message-
> From: general-return-39339-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org
> [mailto:general-return-39339-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org]
> On Behalf Of Chris Douglas
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 4:36 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Su
Infra asks for a "heads up" for large artifacts:
http://s.apache.org/5vz While these aren't over the limit, it might be
worth pinging them. To be clear, these models were trained on external
data, so they can't be regenerated? Are they packaged here for
convenience, or is this the primary mechanism
On Behalf Of Matt Franklin
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 12:47 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Masanz, James J.
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the comment abou
ral-return-39328-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org>t:;>
>> > [mailto:general-return-39328-Masanz.James =
>> mayo@incubator.apache.org ]
>> > On Behalf Of Matt Franklin
>> > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 12:38 PM
>> > To: general@incubator.
ew that exist in SVN. All dependencies that are
>> > compiled code need to be externally referenced.
>> >
>> > As for the models, I don' think there is any issue in keeping them in
>> > jars, but the question is why? Are they never going to evolve or
>&g
tt Franklin
> > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 12:38 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Masanz, James J.
> > wrote:
> > > The result of the
t; From: general-return-39325-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org
> >> [mailto:general-return-39325-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.o
> >> rg]
> >> On Behalf Of Matt Franklin
> >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 7:42 AM
> >> To: general@incub
is not an issue, I am just
> > curious.
> >
> >>
> >> I will look at the NOTICE file this afternoon.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> James Masanz
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: genera
t an issue, I am just
> curious.
>
>>
>> I will look at the NOTICE file this afternoon.
>>
>> Regards,
>> James Masanz
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-
>>> From: general-return-39326-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org
>
lto:general-return-39326-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org]
>> On Behalf Of Masanz, James J.
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 9:51 AM
>> To: 'general@incubator.apache.org'
>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>>
>>
t Franklin
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 7:42 AM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: ctakes-...@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>>
>> I have some issues with this release as it currently stands:
>>
.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org
> [mailto:general-return-39326-Masanz.James=mayo@incubator.apache.org]
> On Behalf Of Masanz, James J.
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 9:51 AM
> To: 'general@incubator.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5
1, 2013 7:42 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: ctakes-...@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
>
> I have some issues with this release as it currently stands:
>
> * Where is the result of the VOTE thread on the dev lis
I have some issues with this release as it currently stands:
* Where is the result of the VOTE thread on the dev list?
* Where is the source artifact? The artifact linked in the vote
thread appears to be your convenience binary release.
* There are compiled jars in the source tree. These need to
I will take a look before Monday at the latest.
On Friday, January 18, 2013, Coarr, Matt wrote:
> Hi, we just need one more Incubator PMC vote for cTAKES version 3.0.
>
> Matt
>
>
> ---
> From: , Pei >
> Subject: Collecting IPMC votes
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a call for a vote on releasing the followi
Hi, we just need one more Incubator PMC vote for cTAKES version 3.0.
Matt
---
From: , Pei
Subject: Collecting IPMC votes
Hi,
This is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating.
This will be our first release.
A vote is also held on the develope
48 matches
Mail list logo
