On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:48 AM, sebb wrote:
On 19 March 2014 15:05, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
what has been with the rule that an ipmc must forward the VOTE to the
incubator pmc when it gets started, and those members can also cast a
binding -1 ?
IPMC votes are the only ones
Release votes are expected to be a decision of the list of people
empowered by the foundation to make that decision. How that list
of people is populated for podlings is up to the PMC. Right now,
the only list we have is the IPMC itself, as appointed by the board.
If the Incubator wants to
On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 10/2/13 10:09 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
To me, agreeing on the norm is not the same as policy, especially
policy
that does not allow for exceptions.
I
It is a majority decision. In theory, the PMC could decide to
create special bylaws that would change that to a lazy consensus
decision, but then I would have to lay the smack down about why
it is that the US government sucks because supermajorities are
designed to deny proper governance.
In the
On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Benson,
On 1/24/13 7:23 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
It's unfortunate to have this conversation in parallel here and
I suggest choosing a different name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_%28coordination_language%29
We generally don't use names that have been (and continue to be)
used extensively by other software projects.
Roy
On Nov 16, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
Dear all,
we
[generic incubator comments -- nothing specific to CloudStack] ...
On Oct 29, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
On 29 October 2012 14:48, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
But regardless, you couldn't. A
On Sep 10, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Please see the resolution below and VOTE on it for the graduation of the
Apache
SIS podling from the Apache Incubator. I'll leave the VOTE
On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do
I fear we are miscommunicating again.
Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
Jeff just needs to give the project permission -- one simple
email message to the list is enough -- and then anyone at Apache
can move
On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted an email earlier today where I discussed my confusion over the
diversity requirement. I'm not comfortable doing anything without getting
some feedback on whether the diversity requirement, as currently stated on
the wiki, is correct
There is no diversity requirement for graduating from the incubator. In many
ways, incubation hinders community growth. The requirement is that the project
makes decisions as an Apache project, not in private, which is harder to get
used to doing if a lot of people share the same office.
On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Fabian Christ wrote:
Hi,
Am 26. März 2012 17:20 schrieb Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe shinichiro.ab
On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include
the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of our LICENSE files (alongside a more
permissive license), but the key here is that it is both legally OK for us to
distribute a
On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer
to a list of other licenses per
On Mar 28, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Roy,
Of course you, personally, can't be expected to supervise all projects
or fix all documentation. At the same time, there's something a little
depressing about the situation. On the one hand, the principle at work
here is, to
On Mar 27, 2012, at 2:15 AM, sebb wrote:
On 26 March 2012 16:20, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com wrote
package.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
Likewise for jar files of dependencies -- they are NOT our product and they
MUST NOT be present in the source code package that is voted on for release.
Citation needed. Note that the source materials reference
On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
Some clarifications:
Hi Roy,
(1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all
non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description
of the licensing of that jar. We do not attempt to relicense
anything. No
On Mar 1, 2012, at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 3/1/2012 9:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
I don't know what statement Roy is referring to, so I won't challenge
it directly. Instead I will ask that people work together to find out
what processes are right for the ASF at this point in
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
or...). In particular, when problems arise
On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
On 01/30/2012 05:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage
simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corporate concerns masked
otherwise). People have said in the past, you should
On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks,
or otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we
are accepting the COMMUNITY.
One company
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 9, 2012 10:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
And, no, the discussion has not been with the Trac community -- it was
in private with a few individuals; as far as Apache is concerned,
it never happened.
And Oracle's
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012 4:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
The original developers are not ambivalent
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or
otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we are
accepting the COMMUNITY.
One company is not a community.
And it seems to me that if we
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012 4:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
The original developers are not ambivalent to this fork.
Untrue. Christian and Remy are, and always have been, supportive
Hi folks,
It has come to my attention that we are wasting resources and
time trying to manage separate committer lists within infra for
every podling. That is something that we can effectively manage
once a TLP has become self-governing and self-sufficient in its
interaction with infrastructure.
On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Alan Gates wrote:
Some context here for you. Howl is a project that was recently accepted to
the Incubator. It is a proposed new component in the Hadoop eco system.
There is significant concern in the Incubator that this will clash with the
name of the Howl
On Jun 15, 2009, at 5:56 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I like the idea, though I would prefer that a larger group
of committers (outside Yahoo!) were known up front because
that sounds like a big code base. Any chance you could convince
some of the former coders to join
On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
Good morning,
We would like to submit the Traffic Server proposal to the
incubator. Our draft is available at
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TrafficServerProposal
A quick overview of Traffic Server:
Traffic Server is a Yahoo! /
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/httpd-mod_fcgid.html
Apache HTTP Server's mod_fcgid is a module for httpd that
enables the server framework to provide FastCGI services using a
clean-room implementation of the FastCGI 1.0 specification (http://
On Jul 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Malcolm Edgar wrote:
One possible complication to this is that all the code in Click
currently has a copyright header assigned to Malcolm Edgar, even if
they were contributed from other comitters. So in committing code
people have explicity assigned their copyright
On Jul 27, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Is there existing code in Click written by Ahmed? As getting an
ICLA or rewriting this code will be required as a part of the IP
clearance process.
That isn't quite true. The ASF requires documentation that the original
author has
Dims, I have to disagree. The releases that we allow incubating
projects
to make, with three +1s and a majority approval, are full Apache
releases.
They have been officially approved by the foundation and we are 100%
responsible for their content. That's okay, because they also tend to
On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Apache isn't about 'community over code'. The code is just as
important - if not more so. For Incubator releases, the releases
aren't held to the same legal standard as releases from other PMCs.
Huh? The only difference I know of is the
On May 18, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
apache needs a record of the checksummed artifact. this is likely to
be the zipped code.
FTR, Apache only needs this if there is no other way to map the
contribution to the contributor. The easiest way to map them is
to have the
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/httpd-mod_domain-clearance.html
httpd mod_domain (nee mod_dns) IP clearance
Apache HTTP Server's mod_domain is a module for httpd that enables the
server framework to provide Domain Name Services (DNS). It was
originally
called mod_dns, but the name
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-74?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12591773#action_12591773
]
Roy T. Fielding commented on INCUBATOR-74:
--
I like the approach
On Mar 7, 2008, at 11:07 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 07 March 2008 16:39, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So the CCLA exists for those who's employment agreements would
otherwise
cause them to violate their claims made via their CLA contract.
Uhhh So, are we now saying that heaps of
I would just add that JSR-311 might also be an option.
As an aside (and since you folks are on the Expert Group), do we
know if
JAX-RS will be under a suitable specification license, or has Sun
encumbered
it as they have other Sun-led specifications?
We don't know. We won't implement
On Feb 21, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Feb 21, 2007, at 1:08 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
One thing that seems to have been forgotten is that an approved
release must be in the form of SOURCE CODE and must be placed
in the associated PMC's public distribution area under
http
On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
+1 to everything above -- although, rather than saying a later notice
needs to be sent out when the encryption functionality changes, I'd
put it as, a later notice needs to be sent when any information on
the prior notice has changed...but this
At various times, various people have stated various rather
incongruent descriptions of what has to be done when a podling
performs a release
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
One thing that seems to have been forgotten is that an approved
release must be in the form
I noticed yesterday that James Snell was being very proactive
and submitted the correct BIS notification for Abdera.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-abdera-dev/
200702.mbox/raw/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, please note that Abdera is not yet an Apache Project,
even though it
On Feb 20, 2007, at 7:11 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
In other words, we agree there is probably an export issue to resolve,
however /dist/incubator/ does not exist for a reason, and it would be
helpful if you ran changes to the incubator past the incubator PMC
before confusing our podlings
BIS notices have to be made if a product contains encryption
functionality controlled by the EAR's 5D002 classification, or
is specifically designed to make use of a 5D002 classified item
(as would the case if the source code contains calls to OpenSSL
or JCE interfaces), or if any released
I am too far underwater to keep track of the incubator mail,
so there is no point in continuing to be on the PMC. I'll
probably be back some day when I have a reason to justify
the time and focus.
Roy
-
To unsubscribe,
+1
Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 19, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On 12/11/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Can a PMC chair veto a release?
No. A chair only counts as one vote. A chair's only special powers
are to receive things officially and ensure that the PMC does vote.
Euh
On Dec 20, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 18:04, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
That's how it works.
No, that's not how it works.
Isn't it a bit scary that two of the most respected members of ASF
don't agree
On Dec 10, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 10 Dec 06, at 8:02 PM 10 Dec 06, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 12/10/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10 Dec 06, at 6:40 PM 10 Dec 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 10, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Karl Pauls wrote:
We ask that you please
On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
On 12/7/06, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say for now we just remove that jar if it's needed.
However, how
did
the servicemix and other projects votes pass if it's a
requirement? Is
this
another new requirement in the
On Dec 7, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
I must be missing something. If they aren't voted on, how do you know
if they're valid and meet release requirements?
It is impossible to verify that in a binary. We have to trust the
person building it to do so according to an approved
On Nov 16, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
We'll correct these issues asap. Once corrected artifacts are
uploaded, I assume it will necessary to re-start the vote on the
open-jpa-dev list before re-starting the vote here. Please correct
me if I am wrong.
That is correct --
On Nov 16, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
BTW, why distribute a zip package? Wouldn't it be more sensible to
distribute as a jar? Just curious.
The zip contains documentation, examples, and the dependency jars
required to run the examples.
Yes, I know that -- the point was
On Nov 10, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There seems to be a persistent delusion that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is where incubation happens. The
reality is that all the real incubating happens on the PPMC private
and dev lists.
We can correct this in one of two ways: recognize what actually
On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
So, I'm trying to finish off the job of removing lucene4c from the web
site, since it's been retired it shouldn't be showing up in the list
of podlings and what not, and when I'm generating the site I can't
help but notice lots of changes in
On Nov 9, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Don Brown wrote:
What exactly makes something a part of the official ASF
infrastructure? I thought it was that a member of Infrastructure had
volunteered to maintain it, and if that's the case, Confluence is
indeed a part of the official ASF infrastructure since I,
done.
Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 29, 2006, at 5:37 AM, Upayavira wrote:
The Wicket community is attempting to steer a difficult course
between supporting its existing users and also entering Incubation.
The community is committed to incubation within Apache, but at the
same time wishes to make the transition for
On Oct 27, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Jim Hurley wrote:
On Oct 25, 2006, at 6:35 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
It doesn't matter whatsoever as long as you are VERY consistently
calling it Apache Braintree as you should be doing _anyways_
Would that apply equally to the two names that
+1 (travel delayed)
Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 21, 2006, at 3:24 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
This is *not* an actual vote. The vote is on harmony-dev; see
Well, then, why did you call it a vote? This is what we call
confusing the voters, ballot irregularities, hanging chad, and
other fun things that cause unnecessary wars.
I don't
On Oct 23, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
Change the subject line when you change the subject...done.
But you didn't change the subject, so that was a bad idea.
On Oct 21, 2006, at 11:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 21, 2006, at 3:24 AM, Leo Simons wrote
On Oct 20, 2006, at 3:34 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:
To be clear, our snapshots are more than a simple snap of
Subversion --
we (the Harmony community) discuss the right time to create the
development snapshot to accommodate known instability caused by
work in
flight, publish the snapshot with
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I agree with the motivations behind asking for a release, but
disagree that a release is the only way to satisfy IPMC's need for
information about the health and capability of a podling's future
life as a TLP.
It isn't -- it is just
On Oct 18, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Don Brown wrote:
Agreed. I don't think it is fair to be making up graduation
requirements right when a project is about to graduate.
The graduation requirement is that a majority of the PMC members
agree that a podling should be graduated. Geir asked for a
On Oct 18, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Grote, Judy wrote:
He just never seems to give up--like a small child not knowing when to
stop.
No, more like an old grandpa who sees his grandkids grab a pair of
scissors and then asks the parents whether they've taught them
not to start running around the room
+1
Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 9, 2006, at 2:59 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
the source distributions unpacks to the same directory as the binary.
this is inconvenient for users. it's better to unpack the source to
incubator-activemq-4.0.2-src.
I disagree with that. Usually, a source distribution should be the
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
quorum of three PMC
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural
for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's at least get CXF off to a good start!
Or kill it now and let the proposers compile a list
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
decisions
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
podling and the Mentors.
this is not policy ATM
Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronimo incubation.
They do have binding votes on everything
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
-1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors are
the
least capable of selecting a PPMC.
I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
You mean it isn't always true. I agree. In general, however, it is
almost
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing
On Aug 15, 2006, at 2:38 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
It isn't the individuals who make the decision, but the community
as a whole.
If they feel more comfortable using X to communicate then fine.
If a individual doesn't like the method the project is
communicating with then it
is up to him to
On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Brian,
Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private
channels,
that said we are in
the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and
feedback
On Aug 1, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Cayenne has obtained ICLAs for all committers, including retired
committers. They have also obtained ICLAs for any who submitted
patches
-- with the exception of 4 patch submitters whose contributions were
minor, trivial, reworked or broken
On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
Well, no, the expectation is clearly being set that anyone can add
themselves to the proposal on the wiki, and I for one vote to approve
a proposal based on both the wiki and
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think so -- an unwelcome mentor is a waste of everyone's time.
I also think mentors need commit access, since I don't believe
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 14:54 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you
On Jul 21, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Yep, both ws and jakarta have single ACL's. So any committer on any
sub-project can *CHOOSE* to participate in any other sub-project.
So can anyone who isn't a committer. You don't need commit access
to participate.
Roy
On Jul 21, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
If you search many of the Apache project names, they are
trademarked to gezoo,
No they aren't, at least not within the software category.
Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
committership. And the justification for the first part seemed to
be making
sure that a company
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
I was more thinking of how mentors volunteer to guide the project
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project)
but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
On 7/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer
OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project
can cause a previously closed standard to be forced into the open
or be supplanted.
In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks
in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least
one registered
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer in the incubator
is giving a person the right to veto code changes based on whatever
technical reason they
On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:20 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We just voted to elect a non-Member ASF Officer to the Incubator
PMC in order for him to act as Mentor for the projects sponsored
by the PMC of which he is the PMC Chair. Do we wish to declare
that election and process null and void? Or do
On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:14 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
To quote myself, but this is hardly the first time it has come up:
---
Mentors are (MUST BE) Incubator PMC Members. ASF Members are
automatically
eligible for PMC membership; non-Members may be elected at the
discretion of
the Incubator
On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It is absolute nonsense to have someone guiding newbies through
the ASF process when they haven't even made it to the halfway
point themselves.
Membership is a half-way point? What's the full distance? ;-)
I'll
On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
In this case, we had several weeks of discussion on Heraldry,
including some F2F
conversations at ApacheCon EU, so 72 hours doesn't seem like a big
deal to me.
If people want to extend the voting period, I've no problem with
that. I guess the
On Jun 29, 2006, at 6:50 AM, Recordon, David wrote:
For the last IETF meeting, Dick Hardt of Sxip had created a mailing
list called DIX (http://dixs.org http://dixs.org/ ) and had a BOF
under the same name. It was focused on the Sxip 2.0 protocol as a
way to move authentication and profile
On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:57 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
So, the guide that I'm tackling is the Podling Branding guide.
It would be nice to tackle the still-nonexistant Apache branding
guide as well. That way you could link to it from this doc.
Here's what I'm proposing after some feedback
On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
committing is just a privilage with no legal status. commit status
can be
easily revocated by
This is interesting
the board,
I can see this
the members,
How can this happen?
The members can do anything in
The Synapse incubator would like to ask the Incubator PMC to
release the
Synapse project into the Apache Web Services PMC. Synapse heavily
integrates with other WS projects including Axis2, Axiom, Sandesha,
Rampart.
The Synapse status page is here:
On Jun 20, 2006, at 5:54 AM, Recordon, David wrote:
This has obviously been something we've been looking at in order to do
our own due diligence on XRI IPR before being willing to contribute
the
Yadis spec to be incorporated into XRI Resolution 2.0.
That's great, but I wasn't just
All of the cut and pastes you sent, and the addresses included in
the messages, have whitespace near the end. e.g.,
apach e.org
instead of
apache.org
You need to send to the entire address without any whitespace.
If that is not the problem, then try adding a subject to the message.
1 - 100 of 276 matches
Mail list logo
