Board report due

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

Board report due

kaosko
Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing
up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if
nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me know
if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we
should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and
graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
graduation checklist Les?

Kalle
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

Les Hazlewood
Administrator
Hi Kalle,

I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and tomorrow.  Would
you mind giving a crack at it?

The only blocking items that I can think of are

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing
> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if
> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me know
> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we
> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and
> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
> graduation checklist Les?
>
> Kalle
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

Les Hazlewood
Administrator
Sorry - sent accidentally.  Any blocking items should still be documented in
the status file in SVN - I don't have access to it at the moment...

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Kalle,
>
> I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and tomorrow.
>  Would you mind giving a crack at it?
>
> The only blocking items that I can think of are
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing
>> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if
>> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me know
>> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we
>> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and
>> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
>> graduation checklist Les?
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

kaosko
See the proposed board report at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/board/2010-07.txt and
comment/edit as you like. I'll add it to the board Wiki tomorrow COB.

On STATUS, I say we can check this off:
  -- Does the documentation site has enough information on the
architecure, design decisions and
     modules?

Kalle


On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sorry - sent accidentally.  Any blocking items should still be documented in
> the status file in SVN - I don't have access to it at the moment...
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kalle,
>>
>> I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and tomorrow.
>>  Would you mind giving a crack at it?
>>
>> The only blocking items that I can think of are
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing
>>> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if
>>> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me know
>>> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we
>>> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and
>>> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
>>> graduation checklist Les?
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

Les Hazlewood-2
Awesome, thanks Kalle!

As to the comment about the committers, should we flag this in a board
report yet?  My opinion is that this might stir up things unnecessarily - we
might resolve it internally before we attempt to graduate, and the IPMC
wouldn't have needed to been bothered with it.  Or if we should keep it in
the report, maybe state that we're actively addressing it.

As for the documentation - I think we're doing well enough in that area for
the STATUS document.  Sure, it can be improved (it can always be improved),
but I've heard from others that it is already better than even some
graduated sites' documentation.  I'm not saying that there isn't a lot hat
we can still do, but as far as the STATUS is concerned, I think we're good.

My .02

Les

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kalle Korhonen <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> See the proposed board report at
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/board/2010-07.txt and
> comment/edit as you like. I'll add it to the board Wiki tomorrow COB.
>
> On STATUS, I say we can check this off:
>  -- Does the documentation site has enough information on the
> architecure, design decisions and
>     modules?
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Sorry - sent accidentally.  Any blocking items should still be documented
> in
> > the status file in SVN - I don't have access to it at the moment...
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Kalle,
> >>
> >> I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and tomorrow.
> >>  Would you mind giving a crack at it?
> >>
> >> The only blocking items that I can think of are
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing
> >>> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if
> >>> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me know
> >>> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we
> >>> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and
> >>> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
> >>> graduation checklist Les?
> >>>
> >>> Kalle
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

kaosko
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As to the comment about the committers, should we flag this in a board
> report yet?  My opinion is that this might stir up things unnecessarily - we
> might resolve it internally before we attempt to graduate, and the IPMC
> wouldn't have needed to been bothered with it.  Or if we should keep it in
> the report, maybe state that we're actively addressing it.

"Resolve it internally?" - Les, you've lived too long in the corporate
world :) The way I see it, we put whatever is important to us in the
report. The only reason then not to put something in there, would be
if the topic wasn't important enough for us to address but the more we
talk about it, the more I think it should be on the report. I think
the paragraph already shows that we actively addressing the issue and
managing the health of the project. I doubt that IPMC is going to be
bothered with it, but in any event, we need to demonstrate that the
PPMC can self-sufficiently manage the whole project other than just
checking in code and that's what mentors are looking for, right? I
doubt the issue with a small number of genuinely active committers is
anything new to the IPMC and Apache in general - at least from what
I've seen, even in the largest and most active projects there's quite
often only a few committers involved in a day-to-day basis. That said,
I won't object if you change/remove the paragraph.

> As for the documentation - I think we're doing well enough in that area for
> the STATUS document.  Sure, it can be improved (it can always be improved),
> but I've heard from others that it is already better than even some
> graduated sites' documentation.  I'm not saying that there isn't a lot hat
> we can still do, but as far as the STATUS is concerned, I think we're good.

Agree 100% and checked it off.

Kalle


> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kalle Korhonen <[hidden email]
>> wrote:
>
>> See the proposed board report at
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/board/2010-07.txt and
>> comment/edit as you like. I'll add it to the board Wiki tomorrow COB.
>>
>> On STATUS, I say we can check this off:
>>  -- Does the documentation site has enough information on the
>> architecure, design decisions and
>>     modules?
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Sorry - sent accidentally.  Any blocking items should still be documented
>> in
>> > the status file in SVN - I don't have access to it at the moment...
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Kalle,
>> >>
>> >> I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and tomorrow.
>> >>  Would you mind giving a crack at it?
>> >>
>> >> The only blocking items that I can think of are
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen <
>> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing
>> >>> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if
>> >>> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me know
>> >>> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we
>> >>> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and
>> >>> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
>> >>> graduation checklist Les?
>> >>>
>> >>> Kalle
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

Les Hazlewood-2
In reply to this post by Les Hazlewood-2
I think we can also consider these remaining 3 complete as well, no?

-- Do All the software in the codebase, are licensed (or
multi-licensed) under the Apache licence?
-- For all code included with the distribution that is not under the
Apache license, do we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed
code and redistribute?
-- Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or
more of the following approved licenses:  Apache, BSD, Artistic,
MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?

We couldn't have done a release without all 3 passing.

Les

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Awesome, thanks Kalle!
> As to the comment about the committers, should we flag this in a board report yet?  My opinion is that this might stir up things unnecessarily - we might resolve it internally before we attempt to graduate, and the IPMC wouldn't have needed to been bothered with it.  Or if we should keep it in the report, maybe state that we're actively addressing it.
> As for the documentation - I think we're doing well enough in that area for the STATUS document.  Sure, it can be improved (it can always be improved), but I've heard from others that it is already better than even some graduated sites' documentation.  I'm not saying that there isn't a lot hat we can still do, but as far as the STATUS is concerned, I think we're good.
> My .02
> Les
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kalle Korhonen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> See the proposed board report at
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/board/2010-07.txt and
>> comment/edit as you like. I'll add it to the board Wiki tomorrow COB.
>>
>> On STATUS, I say we can check this off:
>>  -- Does the documentation site has enough information on the
>> architecure, design decisions and
>>     modules?
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Sorry - sent accidentally.  Any blocking items should still be documented in
>> > the status file in SVN - I don't have access to it at the moment...
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Kalle,
>> >>
>> >> I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and tomorrow.
>> >>  Would you mind giving a crack at it?
>> >>
>> >> The only blocking items that I can think of are
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen <
>> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing
>> >>> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if
>> >>> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me know
>> >>> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we
>> >>> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and
>> >>> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
>> >>> graduation checklist Les?
>> >>>
>> >>> Kalle
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

kaosko
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think we can also consider these remaining 3 complete as well, no?

Yes, meant to ask about those when I did the release. The IP clearance
was done around the time I came on board but the items were not
checked out, I was unsure at the time if there was still some
verification that needed to be done but I think it was just a lapse of
nobody marking them as done. The dependencies and the distribution is
all clear so they should all be complete AFAIK.

Kalle


> -- Do All the software in the codebase, are licensed (or
> multi-licensed) under the Apache licence?
> -- For all code included with the distribution that is not under the
> Apache license, do we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed
> code and redistribute?
> -- Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or
> more of the following approved licenses:  Apache, BSD, Artistic,
> MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?
>
> We couldn't have done a release without all 3 passing.
>
> Les
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Awesome, thanks Kalle!
>> As to the comment about the committers, should we flag this in a board report yet?  My opinion is that this might stir up things unnecessarily - we might resolve it internally before we attempt to graduate, and the IPMC wouldn't have needed to been bothered with it.  Or if we should keep it in the report, maybe state that we're actively addressing it.
>> As for the documentation - I think we're doing well enough in that area for the STATUS document.  Sure, it can be improved (it can always be improved), but I've heard from others that it is already better than even some graduated sites' documentation.  I'm not saying that there isn't a lot hat we can still do, but as far as the STATUS is concerned, I think we're good.
>> My .02
>> Les
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kalle Korhonen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> See the proposed board report at
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/board/2010-07.txt and
>>> comment/edit as you like. I'll add it to the board Wiki tomorrow COB.
>>>
>>> On STATUS, I say we can check this off:
>>>  -- Does the documentation site has enough information on the
>>> architecure, design decisions and
>>>     modules?
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > Sorry - sent accidentally.  Any blocking items should still be documented in
>>> > the status file in SVN - I don't have access to it at the moment...
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Kalle,
>>> >>
>>> >> I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and tomorrow.
>>> >>  Would you mind giving a crack at it?
>>> >>
>>> >> The only blocking items that I can think of are
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen <
>>> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing
>>> >>> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if
>>> >>> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me know
>>> >>> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we
>>> >>> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and
>>> >>> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
>>> >>> graduation checklist Les?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Kalle
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

Craig L Russell
This thread indicates to me that the project is pretty far along  
toward graduation. Congratulations.

Most projects face three major barriers to graduation: releasable  
code, strong user/developer community and independent committers who  
are willing to manage the project (as a PMC) on a continuing basis.

So progress in these three areas is by definition of interest to the  
IPMC and should be reported.

There's only one &huh? in the report. What is meant by graduation  
"during the next period"? Better to put a date here, like "by October"  
if that's what you meant, or "by August".

Good work all around.

Craig

On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Les Hazlewood  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I think we can also consider these remaining 3 complete as well, no?
>
> Yes, meant to ask about those when I did the release. The IP clearance
> was done around the time I came on board but the items were not
> checked out, I was unsure at the time if there was still some
> verification that needed to be done but I think it was just a lapse of
> nobody marking them as done. The dependencies and the distribution is
> all clear so they should all be complete AFAIK.
>
> Kalle
>
>
>> -- Do All the software in the codebase, are licensed (or
>> multi-licensed) under the Apache licence?
>> -- For all code included with the distribution that is not under the
>> Apache license, do we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed
>> code and redistribute?
>> -- Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or
>> more of the following approved licenses:  Apache, BSD, Artistic,
>> MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same  
>> terms?
>>
>> We couldn't have done a release without all 3 passing.
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Awesome, thanks Kalle!
>>> As to the comment about the committers, should we flag this in a  
>>> board report yet?  My opinion is that this might stir up things  
>>> unnecessarily - we might resolve it internally before we attempt  
>>> to graduate, and the IPMC wouldn't have needed to been bothered  
>>> with it.  Or if we should keep it in the report, maybe state that  
>>> we're actively addressing it.
>>> As for the documentation - I think we're doing well enough in that  
>>> area for the STATUS document.  Sure, it can be improved (it can  
>>> always be improved), but I've heard from others that it is already  
>>> better than even some graduated sites' documentation.  I'm not  
>>> saying that there isn't a lot hat we can still do, but as far as  
>>> the STATUS is concerned, I think we're good.
>>> My .02
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kalle Korhonen <[hidden email]
>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> See the proposed board report at
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/board/ 
>>>> 2010-07.txt and
>>>> comment/edit as you like. I'll add it to the board Wiki tomorrow  
>>>> COB.
>>>>
>>>> On STATUS, I say we can check this off:
>>>>  -- Does the documentation site has enough information on the
>>>> architecure, design decisions and
>>>>     modules?
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Les Hazlewood  
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry - sent accidentally.  Any blocking items should still be  
>>>>> documented in
>>>>> the status file in SVN - I don't have access to it at the  
>>>>> moment...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Les Hazlewood  
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Kalle,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and  
>>>>>> tomorrow.
>>>>>>  Would you mind giving a crack at it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only blocking items that I can think of are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen <
>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started  
>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it  
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let  
>>>>>>> me know
>>>>>>> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I  
>>>>>>> suppose we
>>>>>>> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0  
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
>>>>>>> graduation checklist Les?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

kaosko
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Craig L Russell
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> This thread indicates to me that the project is pretty far along toward
> graduation. Congratulations.

Thanks Craig!

> There's only one &huh? in the report. What is meant by graduation "during
> the next period"? Better to put a date here, like "by October" if that's
> what you meant, or "by August".

Meant to imply "during the next reporting period", but yeah it's
vague. Changed to "by October" (just to give ourselves some time - but
should really target August so we might actually graduate by
September).

Kalle


> On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we can also consider these remaining 3 complete as well, no?
>>
>> Yes, meant to ask about those when I did the release. The IP clearance
>> was done around the time I came on board but the items were not
>> checked out, I was unsure at the time if there was still some
>> verification that needed to be done but I think it was just a lapse of
>> nobody marking them as done. The dependencies and the distribution is
>> all clear so they should all be complete AFAIK.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>>> -- Do All the software in the codebase, are licensed (or
>>> multi-licensed) under the Apache licence?
>>> -- For all code included with the distribution that is not under the
>>> Apache license, do we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed
>>> code and redistribute?
>>> -- Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or
>>> more of the following approved licenses:  Apache, BSD, Artistic,
>>> MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?
>>>
>>> We couldn't have done a release without all 3 passing.
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Awesome, thanks Kalle!
>>>> As to the comment about the committers, should we flag this in a board
>>>> report yet?  My opinion is that this might stir up things unnecessarily - we
>>>> might resolve it internally before we attempt to graduate, and the IPMC
>>>> wouldn't have needed to been bothered with it.  Or if we should keep it in
>>>> the report, maybe state that we're actively addressing it.
>>>> As for the documentation - I think we're doing well enough in that area
>>>> for the STATUS document.  Sure, it can be improved (it can always be
>>>> improved), but I've heard from others that it is already better than even
>>>> some graduated sites' documentation.  I'm not saying that there isn't a lot
>>>> hat we can still do, but as far as the STATUS is concerned, I think we're
>>>> good.
>>>> My .02
>>>> Les
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> See the proposed board report at
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/board/2010-07.txt and
>>>>> comment/edit as you like. I'll add it to the board Wiki tomorrow COB.
>>>>>
>>>>> On STATUS, I say we can check this off:
>>>>>  -- Does the documentation site has enough information on the
>>>>> architecure, design decisions and
>>>>>    modules?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry - sent accidentally.  Any blocking items should still be
>>>>>> documented in
>>>>>> the status file in SVN - I don't have access to it at the moment...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Kalle,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and tomorrow.
>>>>>>>  Would you mind giving a crack at it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only blocking items that I can think of are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing
>>>>>>>> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if
>>>>>>>> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we
>>>>>>>> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and
>>>>>>>> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the
>>>>>>>> graduation checklist Les?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email]
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

Les Hazlewood-2
In reply to this post by kaosko
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> anything new to the IPMC and Apache in general - at least from what
> I've seen, even in the largest and most active projects there's quite
> often only a few committers involved in a day-to-day basis. That said,
> I won't object if you change/remove the paragraph.

Nope, I don't object :)  I just didn't want to raise concern to an
occasional peruser that might not know the whole story.  It's probably
not a big deal, so I'm good with it as it stands.

Les
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

Les Hazlewood-2
In reply to this post by Craig L Russell
> Good work all around.
>
> Craig

Thanks Craig!

We're getting close.  I'm enthralled that we've completed all items in
the STATUS document.  The last thing left is the actual graduation
process.  This feels good :)

Les

P.S.  Kalle do you mind updating the STATUS document and checking off
the remaining 3 fields?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

kaosko
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
> P.S.  Kalle do you mind updating the STATUS document and checking off
> the remaining 3 fields?

Done.

Kalle
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board report due

Les Hazlewood-2
Thanks!  Now to graduate ... :)

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Les Hazlewood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> P.S.  Kalle do you mind updating the STATUS document and checking off
>> the remaining 3 fields?
>
> Done.
>
> Kalle
>