[VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Phil Steitz
The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.

[ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
[ ] +0 I am OK with this
[ ] -0 OK, but...
[ ] -1 I oppose this action because...

This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
13:00 UTC.

Thanks!

Phil


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Gilles Sadowski
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:18:55 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
   [X] +1 I am in favor of this action

> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil

Gilles


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AW: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Bernd Eckenfels
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
+0
 
(I would prefer to not see the traffic on the list)

Von: Phil Steitz
Gesendet: Samstag, 16. Januar 2016 16:19
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.

[ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
[ ] +0 I am OK with this
[ ] -0 OK, but...
[ ] -1 I oppose this action because...

This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
13:00 UTC.

Thanks!

Phil


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

norm-2
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> writes:
>The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
>therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
>TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
>about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
>[ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
>[ ] +0 I am OK with this
>[ ] -0 OK, but...
>[ ] -1 I oppose this action because...

Not sure whether I'm allowed to vote. But if I am: +1

    Norman Shapiro

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Otmar Ertl
+0 I am OK with this


Otmar

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 5:46 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> writes:
>>The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
>>therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
>>TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
>>about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>>
>>[ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
>>[ ] +0 I am OK with this
>>[ ] -0 OK, but...
>>[ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> Not sure whether I'm allowed to vote. But if I am: +1
>
>     Norman Shapiro
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

James Carman
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
+1

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:19 AM Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Thomas Vandahl
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On 16.01.16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote:
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> [X] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...

Bye, Thomas



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Hasan Diwan
+0 I am OK with this.

What benefits does being a TLP get over a commons-subproject? -- H

On 16 January 2016 at 09:49, Thomas Vandahl <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 16.01.16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> > [X] +0 I am OK with this
> > [ ] -0 OK, but...
> > [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> Bye, Thomas
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
OpenPGP: https://hasan.d8u.us/gpg.key
Sent from my mobile device
Envoyé de mon portable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Luc Maisonobe-2
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
Le 16/01/2016 16:18, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
> [X] +1 I am in favor of this action

Luc

> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

garydgregory
In reply to this post by norm-2
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> writes:
> >The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> >therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> >TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> >about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
> >
> >[ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> >[ ] +0 I am OK with this
> >[ ] -0 OK, but...
> >[ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> Not sure whether I'm allowed to vote. But if I am: +1
>

This reminds me that any Apache Committer is an Apache Commons committer
(mod the current infra ticket about Git). What is the plan for a TLP Math?
All Apache Committers become [math] TPL committers (no change from now)?

Gary


>     Norman Shapiro
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Phil Steitz
On 1/16/16 3:41 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> writes:
>>> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
>>> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
>>> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
>>> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
>>> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
>>> [ ] -0 OK, but...
>>> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>> Not sure whether I'm allowed to vote. But if I am: +1
>>
> This reminds me that any Apache Committer is an Apache Commons committer
> (mod the current infra ticket about Git). What is the plan for a TLP Math?
> All Apache Committers become [math] TPL committers (no change from now)?

That is a question that the new PMC would decide.  We also need to
decide who would be on the new PMC.  Step 0 is to decide that we
want to form a new PMC at all.  Once we have decided that we want to
do that, we can discuss all of these things.

Phil

>
> Gary
>
>
>>     Norman Shapiro
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Thomas Neidhart
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On 01/16/2016 04:18 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
[X] +1 I am in favor of this action

Thomas

> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

James Carman
In reply to this post by norm-2
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Not sure whether I'm allowed to vote. But if I am: +1
>
>     Norman Shapiro
>
>
Norman, you're a member of the Commons community.  You are *definitely*
allowed to vote.  The Commons PMC doesn't discourage non-PMC members from
voting.  Take a look at the "binding votes" section here:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Heck, check out the whole thing.  It's a great overview of how (and maybe
more importantly why) we do things here at the ASF with respect to voting.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Emmanuel Bourg-3
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
+0

Emmanuel Bourg

Le 16/01/2016 16:18, Phil Steitz a écrit :

> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


signature.asc (851 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Jörg Schaible
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
+1

Phil Steitz wrote:

> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

William Barker
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
+1

On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Henri Yandell
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
>

+1 (non-binding).

Hen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Ate Douma
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
+1

Ate

On 2016-01-16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote:

> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Benedikt Ritter-4
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
2016-01-16 16:18 GMT+01:00 Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>:

> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.
>
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> [x] +0 I am OK with this
>

Bye,
Benedikt


> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...
>
> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://home.apache.org/~britter/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

Stefan Bodewig
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
+0 since I'm not active in MATH

Stefan

On 2016-01-16, Phil Steitz wrote:

> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable.  I would like
> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate
> TLP to a VOTE.  Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go
> about doing it.  Votes, please.  All are welcome to vote.

> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action
> [ ] +0 I am OK with this
> [ ] -0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this action because...

> This VOTE will run a little longer than usual - closing at 20 Jan
> 13:00 UTC.

> Thanks!

> Phil


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12