RE: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

> -Original Message- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 13:05 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal > > There is a big difference between Apache Op

RE: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

There is a big difference between Apache OpenOffice and NetBeans. NetBeans, even with the NetBeans Platform, is a developer-facing project. I presume that the cycle of learning and improvement out through the adopters and community for NetBeans is operating successfully and will thrive at

RE: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

+1 > -Original Message- > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 00:46 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < >

RE: Ease of release process and exit criteria

+1 to this, including the posts from Mark and Bertrand. I know of a project where this would have made a serious difference for graduation and subsequent sustainability. - Dennis > -Original Message- > From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:a...@shanecurcuru.org] > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016

RE: Ease of release process and exit criteria

> -Original Message- > From: Mark Struberg [mailto:strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID] > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 03:19 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria > > Good links. > > I’d like to add some information for projects who use GIT

RE: Code signing and WOT for releases

> -Original Message- > From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 05:13 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Code signing and WOT for releases > > 4) how to find a public key certificate matching the ID in the signature > and how to

RE: Code signing and WOT for releases

> -Original Message- > From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 08:06 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Code signing and WOT for releases > > > > > From: dennis.hamil...@acm.org > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject:

RE: Code signing and WOT for releases

> -Original Message- > From: Nick Kew [mailto:n...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 02:25 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Code signing and WOT for releases > > On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 09:19 +0200, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > the docs about

RE: Notes on branding

On the other hand, it would be great were the Apache Incubator image linked to something better than http://trafodion.apache.org [;<). As a general observation, the fine print mentioning of Incubator would also serve folks better if there was a link as part of the Incubator mention.

RE: [DISCUSS] Juneau Incubation Proposal

> -Original Message- > From: James Bognar [mailto:james.bog...@salesforce.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:51 > To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Juneau Incubation Proposal > > The list of POJOs supported is listed here: > >

RE: [DISCUSS] Juneau Incubation Proposal

It appears that POJO = Plain-Old Java Object. There does not seem to be consensus on what qualifies as a POJO. There is at least one definition that suggests absence of a need for a class path (?! whatever that means, perhaps being about dependencies?). Is there some technical, definitive

RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math PPMC?

; From: James Carman [mailto:ja...@carmanconsulting.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 04:31 > To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org > Subject: Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math PPMC? > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM Dennis E. Hamilton > <denni

RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Interesting. Does this mean migrating Commons Math to a math PPMC (not IPMC)? Would the scope be the same? Would Commons Math go to the Attic? Is there some problem that this is meant to solve? How is it a solution? - Dennis PS: I have labored through the dev-commons thread on [Math]

ODF Toolkit Podling (was RE: 54 podlings - too many?)

Since I came to OpenOffice and Apache via my work on ODF at OASIS, I have some interest in this topic. I share Sam Ruby's bafflement. Sustainability of a single committer curating the code base is certainly a concern. In November 2015, mentor Nick Burch challenged the podling with the

RE: Copyright sign offs

hndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Dennis, > > > > For some reason, Oliver Rau added you in this commit > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects/od > ftoolkit.xml?r1=1296007=1531246 > > If you don't belong, you should b

RE: Copyright sign offs

Henri, I did a quick look at the odftoolkit repository and the podling page. The odftoolkit project was originally under ALv2. The code still carries Copyright notices on the individual files and the ALv2 license statement has not been updated/replaced by the current one mentioning

RE: Post mortem request for the handling of the Corinthia podling (was Re: FYI, I have subscribed to this list and to your private list)

Not to put too much of a fine point on it, but that license provision strikes me as only half of the deal in the case of a submission to an ASF Project. The other key aspect has to do with the explicit assertion by the pull-requester that they have the right to make the contribution, which is

RE: Post mortem request for the handling of the Corinthia podling (was Re: FYI, I have subscribed to this list and to your private list)

I have declined to participate in any post-mortem activity. There are some relevant matters to clarify in the bringing of this thread to general@ incubator.a.o, however. Comments in-line. > -Original Message- > From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] > Sent: Friday, January 15,

RE: Help for the Log4cxx podling

[not cross-posting] If there is a read-only GitHub mirror of the in-attic SVN repository subtree, will that provide enough history for you? Or would you actually require a (compressed) dump of the read-only SVN repository subtree (not the entire ASF subversion), assuming Apache Infra could

RE: Help for the Log4cxx podling

Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 17:14 > To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org; > tschoen...@am-soft.de > Subject: Re: Help for the Log4cxx podling > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:06 PM Dennis E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.o

RE: Help for the Log4cxx podling

[Not cross-posted] This is not about the governance issues raised in the discussion. Technically, I do not understand what is difficult about creating working copies of a project's portion of the ASF SVN repository. It is done all of the time, for presumably much larger projects. If you mean

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

> -Original Message- > From: r...@databricks.com [mailto:r...@databricks.com] On Behalf Of > Reynold Xin > Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 22:33 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...) > [ ... ] [orcmid] > Committers are required to use

RE: Incubator mail archives lagging badly

I see 253 messages from incubator-geode for November, with the last dated today. I followed the below-supplied URL, switched to date view, and then went to the last available page (3 in this case). Is this not reproducible? - Dennis > -Original Message- > From: Gregory Chase

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

+1 Although an individual taking the RTC route is a bit different than there being a local policy that requires it. This has been addressed subsequently on this thread, but I am struck by Bertrand's simple statement. It inspired a different way of looking at RTC vs CTR. It is a community

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

I think the Maturity Model, relied on as some guidelines for assessing a project, needs to be applied for that purpose in terms of identifying the striving-fors. Is there evidence that particular areas are being strived for. Is there evidence of an anti-pattern. How do these net out in the

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

> -Original Message- > From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@apache.org] > Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 09:29 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and > graduation > > On 03.11.2015 09:48, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: [ ... ]

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

PMC having > a "default" is problematic. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > From: Dennis E. Hamilton<mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > Sent: ‎11/‎6/‎2015 9:35 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.a

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

I think there is a difference between what TLPs do and what the recommended approach for Podlings is. My impression, based on limited podling experience, is that the default tends to be PPMC == committer. Thanks for raising the notion of looking at why committers are *not* moved to the PMC of

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

For me, the key, nay brilliant, terms in the Maturity Model are about "striving." The question is always, is there demonstrable striving toward the elements identified in the maturity model. If that's not apparent, then one has to wonder, whatever the level of achievement, whether that's

RE: Starting from the other end

+1 from me too. I did some wordsmithing but not certain how that works properly in Google Docs in terms of how changes are made evident for review, etc. - Dennis PS: When I go back and review, I see that I needed to leave more highlights or comments to indicate places where I made

RE: structural reform- division of labor

+1 -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 00:39 To: Incubator General ; Joe Schaefer Subject: Re: structural reform- division of labor On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at

RE: Permissive UI Libraries

-Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 08:12 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Permissive UI Libraries (was RE: [NOTICE] corinthia ...) Designing a cross-platform UI library is not a trivial task and I am certain

RE: Permissive UI Libraries

And let us not forget Tk, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_(software)>. - [;<). -Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 08:12 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Permissive UI Libraries (was RE

Permissive UI Libraries (was RE: [NOTICE] corinthia ...)

Designing a cross-platform UI library is not a trivial task and I am certain the false starts far outnumber the few notable successes. Although the idea does make my heart pound, that also reminds me I may not have the youthful vigor and developer chops that would make such an undertaking

RE: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

I can speak to the specific case. The desire is to adopt Qt as the best-choice, most-cross-platform GUI framework for Corinthia on the desktop. The non-commercial, open-source license for Qt is LGPL/GPL. See . As I understand it, a second-thought

RE: ODF Toolkit may need help

Ian, I recall prospects for some cooperation with POI back when the ODF Toolkit came over for incubation. POI is also Java based and deals with Zip-carried document formats and maybe some conversions, at least within the Microsoft Office document models. - Dennis -Original Message-

RE: apache binary distributions

[Not cross-posting to a private list.] Dave, I don't exactly understand what it is expected that trademarks@ would be doing or clarifying with regard to your specific Foo Manchu case. Please explain what you mean by a percentage. - Dennis PS: How do you see a case where the Manchu project

RE: IP clearance template - tweak sanity check

The template is very handy and good to know about. Simple observations: A. Process section 3, first bullet, should also have and/or *an* ASF officer as in the second bullet. B. Process section 5, concerning checksum and detached signature. This has come up recently, so is fresh in my mind.

RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?

[Failing at dealing with this cross-posted and variously-branched discussion on two lists, so I am doing it too. Also OT with respect to Ross's declaration, but it has to do with the fact that release is not so well distinguished as one might hope.] Minor nit? #1: Generally, because of what

RE: apache binary distributions

A side matter that has not been raised here. One reason for protecting a mark is to avoid losing it. I have worked at two corporations that were necessarily aggressive in protecting the use of their marks: Univac in various incarnations and Xerox Corporation. While Google might be happy to

RE: apache binary distributions

Marvin's comprehensive response is very helpful. However, the first described case is about a third-party distribution of binaries, even though some or all of the third parties are participants on the project. (I assume the executable was not produced by the project in a manner that

RE: apache binary distributions

On dev-community, you mentioned something that caught my eye. Although it is a bit OT, maybe not, Roman's observation on this thread (abridged below). Indulge me in borrowing the key bit for me: I get so worked up when 'general public' in our release policy gets [mis]interpreted

[DISCUSS] [VOTE] Graduate Apache Usergrid from the Incubator

I also assume that only PPMC votes are binding is also a mistake, since this [VOTE] is on the general-incubator list. I presume that this means only IPMC votes are binding and that appears to be what the binding votes are. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Daniel Gruno

RE: apache binary distributions

I think there is a bright-line distinction between Apache binary distributions and distributions made by third parties. In particular, I don't think that taking builds off of a buildbot or any other developer or overnight builds will count, although release candidates come close. I think it

RE: third party tooling.

I want to come back to the question about the dependency of a source release on third-party tooling to be built. There is some sort of principle involved when it comes to how others can build the source easily, even if only to confirm that it builds and operates. I would not want to see an

RE: Podlings and the ASF maturity model (was: Reform of Incubator...)

+1 with the understanding that there is the usual flexibility between policies and practices, consistent with the spirit and principles of the ASF for Apache Projects. And, to be fair, I think TLPs should also self-assess on a periodic basis as an accountability of the PMC, nudged as

RE: Podlings and the ASF maturity model (was: Reform of Incubator...)

@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Podlings and the ASF maturity model (was: Reform of Incubator...) Hi, On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: ...I understand the maturity model to be something to aspire to and that Apache Projects

RE: third party tooling.

I don't have an answer about tooling with respect to the need for widely-available tools. If the concern is for ability to use free tools on Windows, but there are alternatives to requiring an expensive commercial IDE for users while still taking advantage of the Microsoft development tool

RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)

from the Apache Incubator) On 4 August 2015 at 18:46, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: +1 on how to start, with the maturity model as exemplar, is an outstanding idea. Thanks. (I even have a poddling in mind for stress-testing it.) It is clear to me, that incubator offer many

RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)

+1 on how to start, with the maturity model as exemplar, is an outstanding idea. Thanks. (I even have a poddling in mind for stress-testing it.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 05:57 To: Incubator

RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)

+1 -Original Message- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 09:37 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator) [ ... ] It's not the central Incubator folks

RE: Licensing Issue

Small but important correction. It is not permissible to claim a public-domain creation of another as your own. There is no open-range, mustang copyright arrangement. In the US, works of the US Government are born public-domain. Not others. Oddly, you as an individual in the US can't *put*

RE: Licensing Issue

E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: [ ... ] But either way, one cannot assert any kind of property right over a work that is not yours (or of someone providing work for hire to you), whether public domain or not. Perhaps true in a literal sense. Nearly trivial (nearly!) derivative

RE: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

Oh. I confused myself. The POLL is about the processing of proposals to create pTLPs, and I was thinking about the creation of procedures for the processing of proposals to create pTLPs. I think the first is fine, right here where it has been. It might be strange for a pTLP proposal to be

RE: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

Would moving this to members make this a members-only conversation? -Original Message- From: Alan Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 07:33 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok? I am very much

RE: [VOTE] Accept Groovy into the Apache Incubator

+1 (non-binding) -Original Message- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 23:56 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Accept Groovy into the Apache Incubator [ ... ] The proposal is available

[OFF-LIST] RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

+1 Nice. Great anticipation and risk management. Great to see made visible. -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail -Original

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

I think the business about numbers of committers and how additions to the community are cultivated is a sniff test concerning sustainability. The idea is to have some sense that there is a sustainable community in place and that there is as much attention on nurturing that sustainability as

RE: Binary Convenience Package Dependencies

The answers below are not on behalf of the ASF, but based on what the common sense appears to be, from my individual perspective. In particular, your project is not relieved from learning what a license requires of it and demonstrating satisfaction of such requirements. -- replying below to --

RE: Binary Convenience Package Dependencies

Interesting. I had not read that passage with a critical eye until just now ... -- replying below to -- From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 17:41 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Binary Convenience Package Dependencies Hi, I would

RE: Git write access for podlings

+1 -Original Message- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 11:44 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Git write access for podlings [ ... ] git is tied to LDAP, and all podling repos are writable by anyone in the incubator LDAP group.

RE: Incubator report sign-off

+1 -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 00:56 To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell andrew.purt...@gmail.com wrote: ...Certainly some projects

RE: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework

and grow is the philosophy behind the 3 initial committers. Cool? Thank you, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Dec 25, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: -- with reply below -- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Thursday, December

RE: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework

I am puzzled by the TinkerPop proposal identifying 3 initial committers and yet there is this long list of affiliated folks. What is that separate list intended to signify if none of them are worthy to be initial committers? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Ted Dunning

RE: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework

-- with reply below -- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 13:39 To: general@incubator.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton Subject: Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil

RE: P. An Excessive Fascination with the Apache Brand

Two thoughts ... -- replying to -- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 00:33 To: Incubator General Subject: Re: P. An Excessive Fascination with the Apache Brand On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:

RE: Votes for git repos - commit id vs tag

-- in reply to -- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 01:28 To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Votes for git repos - commit id vs tag On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: ...Although many

RE: Incubator report sign-off

As a participant, I have two concerns about a player-mentor requirement. 1. Sustainability. In many ways, it is mentors who need to have their attention on The Apache Way and cultivating a sustainable project. That means, from my perspective, that mentors need to encourage others to do

[OFF-LIST] RE: Incubator report sign-off

Now we are getting somewhere? This post disappeared too. But yours in the same thread before it didn't. Are you replying to Chris's post or another here? Was there anything else at all different? Is there more than one way you read from the lists (i.e., via a news reader or something)?

RE: [OFF-LIST] RE: Incubator report sign-off

Sorry, I forgot to change the automatic reply to list when moving this to an off-list investigation. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 15:07 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [OFF-LIST] RE

RE: Votes for git repos - commit id vs tag

+1 on including commit ID (or SVN revision number) along with any tag (or SVN tag/branch) for convenience. -Original Message- From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 05:58 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Votes for git repos - commit

RE: [VOTE] accept corinthia into incubator

+1 (non-binding) -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 09:09 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] accept corinthia into incubator Hi As champion for corinthia, I hereby ask for a vote on accepting corinthia into incubator.

RE: [PROPOSAL] [DISCUSSION] Corinthia Abstract

I put together an abstract in the Corinthia Podling Proposal. It is a bit lengthy and requires review that it captures the essence of what Corinthia is for without over/under-stepping. Here is the text also added to https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CorinthiaProposal, Corinthia converts

Request to be part of contributor group

I also request addition to the contributor group for the purpose of working on the Corinthia proposal. My Incubator Wiki User ID is orcmid. -Original Message- From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 06:28 To: general@incubator.apache.org

RE: Proposals - wiki required?

+1 on Jan's observations, below. Also, from my experience with the Proposal for Apache OpenOffice and a few others, there is considerable refinement of proposals from first draft to the version that is essentially frozen at the time of podling-acceptance balloting. The Wiki is perfect for

RE: Convenience Binary Policy

orcnote in-line. -Original Message- From: br...@apache.org [mailto:br...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 01:47 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy On 22.10.2014 03:02, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, Binary dependencies are, by definition, not

RE: Convenience Binary Policy

orcnote below, -Original Message- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 21:37 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Marvin Humphrey

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)

of the keys association with a committer are updated automatically. That includes any revocations. -- Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail -Original Message

RE: [PROPOSAL] Silk as new Incubator project

orcnote below -Original Message- From: dwhyt...@gmail.com [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Donald Whytock Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 13:52 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Silk as new Incubator project On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Roman

RE: [VOTE] Accept Olingo proposal as an incubating project

+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Florian Müller f...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, I'd like to call a VOTE for acceptance of Olingo into the Apache incubator. The proposal is pasted at the bottom on this email. The corresponding wiki page is: http://wiki.apache.org/**

[OT] The promise of Olingo

E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 08:42 AM To: 'Klevenz, Stephan'; general@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] OData Proposal for Incubator Stephen, I support your choice to have a different name. - Dennis I'm not sure how Olingo is pronounced

RE: [IP CLEARANCE] BigCouch

That page talks about transfer of copyright and addition of Apache copyright notices on the code as imported. Huh? Why aren't the guidelines for transfer of cleaned-up contributions under SGAs being followed, and an SGA being filed that details the contribution? - Dennis -Original

RE: [IP CLEARANCE] BigCouch

guidelines do you not believe have been followed? Why do you believe that an SGA has not been filed? On 26 June 2013 16:05, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: That page talks about transfer of copyright and addition of Apache copyright notices on the code as imported. Huh? Why

RE: [IP CLEARANCE] BigCouch

in particular or are you commenting on the template itself? Had you seen the template before today? B. On 26 June 2013 17:27, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Under the heading Copyright there is an item with text Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF [have

RE: [PROPOSAL] OData Proposal for Incubator

On 18.06.13 15:58, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think there will be an issue with regard to trademarks and you will have to deal with folks seeing the trademark of Apache OData as a land-grab at OData itself. The simplicity you think is avoiding confusion

RE: [PROPOSAL] OData Proposal for Incubator

to keep it simple and avoid confusion. We had also a look into the ASF project naming guidelines and I think most of the points there are considered by the name Apache OData. Regards, Stephan On 18.06.13 03:28, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think one concern here

RE: [PROPOSAL] OData Proposal for Incubator

I think one concern here is appropriation of a generic, specified-tied name to an implementation, even a reference implementation. Apache OData seems over-reaching in that respect, especially since there are other projects, at ASF and elsewhere, that may employ OData bindings and services of

RE: Correct process for signing keys?

@Christian The other advantage of the people list is that it is automatically updated from the federation of PGP key servers so it reflects the latest web of trust and also, I presume, any revocation. In some cases, PMC wide is a bit too generous though. I think the release manager's

RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC

It's often called a dead-man's switch. I think the term applied originally to locomotive engineers and also metro car drivers. (I'm not sure what a dead pilot switch could accomplish in an aircraft.) I think having mentors review and sign PPMC status reports is an effective dead mentor's

RE: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Release Apache Curator 2.0.0-incubating (updated)

Regarding (4), Once you've created the signature file, simply prepend text to it in front of the -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- line. You can have something like Signature by Release Manager Jordan Zimmerman Public Key Certificate:

RE: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Release Apache Curator 2.0.0-incubating (updated)

Four suggestions: 1. Add a UID having your Apache ID, randgalt@ apache.org, in that PGP public-key certificate. You can indicate that it is your preference for code signing, if you desire. 2. Log into your randgalt@ a.o profile at https://id.apache.org/ and provide the fingerprint of your

RE: LICENSE/NOTICE revisited (was Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC8))

Not so fast about dispensing with Category B requirements for pointers to source code. In MPL 2.0, a common case, it is very clear that location of the source code is one of the requirements for distribution of the code in executable form or within a larger work (distributed in binary), that

RE: LICENSE/NOTICE revisited (was Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC8))

2013 18:05, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Not so fast about dispensing with Category B requirements for pointers to source code. Thank you for the specific information about the MPL. What I said

RE: [PROPOSAL] Apache Linda

I've been biting my tongue all of this time and I can't resist any longer. The missing case is Lovelace (bad joke), although WebLace is about linking too. There's no need to borrow a human nick. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya

RE: key signing

@Benson There are two things that can be done, with (2) being what matters to you, it seems to me: 1. The committer can upload the fingerprint-associated public key to the PGP Global Directory at http://keyserver.pgp.com/. That will initiate an e-mail verification for every e-mail

RE: key signing

, October 15, 2012 11:22 To: Dennis E. Hamilton Cc: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: key signing Dennis E. Hamilton wrote on Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:07:56 -0700: https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/orcmid.asc. (I'm not sure where this is fetched from, so I'm not sure how counter-signed

RE: key signing

+1 I'm assuming Benson means the digest (SHA1) by signature. Using those from the Apache site is probably the first-line for power users and about as much extra effort that can be expected. The use of download utilities that reliably check signatures from authentic sources is a small boost

RE: key signing

to checking digital signatures on release candidates and in any subsequent forensic investigation/confirmation. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 08:19 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: key signing

RE: key signing

@Nick I don't understand the supposed attack vector concerning the file digests being of no value and the WoT being essential. - Dennis ANALYSIS So long as the digest value is obtained from a reliable read-only source, it doesn't matter where the file comes from, the digest can be verified.

RE: key signing

@Marvin, Can you say more about Multi-factor? I know commonly-claimed schemes involve the same factor multiple times (e.g., more things that a party knows, like Aunt Gracie's dress size). I agree that confirming a picture ID (something the individual has) is another factor. What other

  1   2   >