Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release

[Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>]

Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should
probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it
as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a
requirement but recommended).

Kalle


On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
>
> The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives
> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
>
> Kalle
>
>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>>> existing notice file.  As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>
>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>>
>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*.  We're definitely
>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>>
>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>
>

Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release

[Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>]

Sounds good to me.

+1 for the wiki.

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You got it. Wiki's probably the lowest overhead, given that it'll end
> up in wiki as well. I don't think there's an SVN requirement.
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Yep, that's the plan at least - and I'd love some review/help along
>> the way :)  I'll be able to dedicate some time to this tomorrow.  How
>> do we want to go through edit iterations?  SVN? Wiki?  Mailing List
>> only?
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should
>>> probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it
>>> as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a
>>> requirement but recommended).
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
>>>>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
>>>>
>>>> The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives
>>>> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
>>>> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
>>>> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
>>>> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
>>>> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
>>>> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
>>>> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
>>>> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>>>>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>>>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>>>>>> existing notice file.  As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>>>>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>>>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>>>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*.  We're definitely
>>>>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>>>>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>>>>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release

[Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>]

You got it. Wiki's probably the lowest overhead, given that it'll end
up in wiki as well. I don't think there's an SVN requirement.

Kalle


On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yep, that's the plan at least - and I'd love some review/help along
> the way :)  I'll be able to dedicate some time to this tomorrow.  How
> do we want to go through edit iterations?  SVN? Wiki?  Mailing List
> only?
>
> Les
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should
>> probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it
>> as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a
>> requirement but recommended).
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
>>>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
>>>
>>> The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives
>>> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
>>> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
>>> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
>>> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
>>> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
>>> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
>>> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
>>> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>>>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>>>>> existing notice file.  As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>>>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*.  We're definitely
>>>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>>>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>>>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release

[Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>]

Yep, that's the plan at least - and I'd love some review/help along
the way :)  I'll be able to dedicate some time to this tomorrow.  How
do we want to go through edit iterations?  SVN? Wiki?  Mailing List
only?

Les

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should
> probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it
> as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a
> requirement but recommended).
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
>>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
>>
>> The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives
>> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
>> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
>> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
>> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
>> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
>> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
>> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
>> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>>>> existing notice file.  As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>>>
>>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*.  We're definitely
>>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>>>
>>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>
>>
>