From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 07:11:47 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 10246 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 07:11:45 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 07:11:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 75534 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 07:11:42 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 75393 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 07:11:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 75382 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 07:11:42 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:11:42 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:11:41 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id x4so169240nfb for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:11:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nihF6FuEmKBh1tiQQbjTsS7Aoy/eVZsUgqIWpfyzf4VhEDQxkODS+vDfpV5BxDRMtGQvAJo1ZE/ug0Zzy84gJRPBqnPdaJ2A2Drj0lmLNIC0R3oXJiNlyrYJXmgx1w6DA4+A/9mL46q9Qz7AQYwR184gxr/oyakQehawfa3JEhU= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id o19mr172558huc; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 00:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:11:19 +0100 From: "James Strachan" <julie93@example.com> To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases? In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 8/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <julie93@example.com> wrote: > Brett Porter wrote: > > > So the solution that best corresponds to this is an incubation repository. > > That's what's been said, but you're one of the Maven ... er ... mavens. :-) If it helps Noel, here's a couple of use cases. In ActiveMQ we ship a bunch of examples for users to try out the code. They are built using Maven 2 and all the artifacts they require contain 'incubator in their name'. The problem is because there is no maven 2 repo to put these dependencies, the example programs we ship in releases don't even compile. Another use case is quite a few projects depend on ActiveMQ both inside and outside of Apache. e.g. ServiceMix, Jencks, Lingo et al. We'd like folks to try out the code that is being incubated (not the releases from a year ago on codehaus) - so consequently we'd like those other projects to migrate to the Apache version of the code ASAP. Right now we have a snapshot repo which is good so that projects can actually compile. However only snapshot jars are available - which means that (i) we can't make stable milestones for dependent projects to use and (ii) the dependent projects can never release themselves. I understand the concerns of keeping incubating code separate from the rest of Apache and away from the mirrors - I just don't yet see the issue with having somewhere on incubator.apache.org where we put a folder containing releases of incubating projects?(i.e. a maven 2 repo). -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 08:10:35 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 34387 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 08:10:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 08:10:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 71389 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 08:10:30 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 71240 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 08:10:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 71225 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 08:10:27 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:10:27 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO pythagoras.zen.co.uk) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:10:26 -0700 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (helo=[83.161.120.155]) by pythagoras.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1G7pKE-0007Vy-JO for julie93@example.com; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:10:02 +0000 Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:09:50 +0100 From: Ross Gardler <julie93@example.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-Pythagoras-IP: [83.161.120.155] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Igor Vaynberg wrote: > hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope you > realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like > refactoring :) > Thanks for the heads up. I do realise this. My project is non urgent and I intend to be actively involved with development once I understand a bit more. Hence choosing 2.0 See you on the Wicket dev lists... Ross --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 08:13:44 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 36282 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 08:13:41 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 08:13:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 74469 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 08:13:39 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 74294 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 08:13:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 74283 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 08:13:38 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:13:38 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO py-out-1112.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:13:38 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c63so1180363pyc for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:13:17 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Z3WBTk3EKvpoQ5ulxBeroWFMpTLaX+1ELTWboPTMr3RWzM+vG4qa9zqtJhpA5KDdsCgcYwhkX9wSrRJms8n0fsvP9f+7GWjLHGvTtuLiB/kNUbK1Cg+vjcJ0QSwysbgtPZEZaejh/Cv4NiQBtyF0XJPiGQkMk6qaiBA4UuL06lU= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id y7mr597605qbl; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 01:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:13:14 +0200 From: "Johan Compagner" <julie93@example.com> To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_35073_14145054.1154419994984" References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_35073_14145054.1154419994984 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline The feeling i get from the mail below is that incubator releases are not really meant for all end users.. You really only want the users that really knows that it is an incubator release. But for me wicket-2.0 will be a full release a real release that every user of wicket should be able to use just as they are using wicket 1.2.x now. And all the time spans for the incubator i here now (6 months is the fastest many go even to 1 year) then we will release or want to release some or many releases in that time frame. And as i said i still have the feeling that that shouldn't be done in the incubator time or under the incubator flag. This is just bad. We need to move on as fast we we developers an put in the code in to SVN. Not as fast as some legal or administrative tasks has to be done. johan On 8/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <julie93@example.com> wrote: > > Dion, > > > What point is there in having something incubated if there are no users? > > We're talking about a balance, and most specifically about ensuring that > only users who have made a specific and informed decision are using the > code > while it is still in the Incubator. The Apache brand has a value and > meaning, and users need to know that there is a greater risk of the > project > not being around here for them, and that the project is not endorsed. The > ASF also needs to prevent brand abuse, which is a distinct possibility, > and > some would claim is already a goal of some contributors. > > > Why have releases from within the Incubator at all, in that case? > > :-) Keep in mind that at one point, *NO* releases were allowed, and that > I > was one of the ones who argued the point that you are making. That we do > want to permit *SOME* sort of release, in order to allow people who *ARE* > fully informed and are willing to take the risk to more easily use the > code > than having to build it from source control, which is what was previously > the only way. > > Maven aside, there is no julie93@example.com. Download the code just like you > would any other package. For maven, an extra step or so to make sure that > the person who is executing maven has very specifically and consciously > opted in to take that specific component from the Incubator. > > And if you'll also notice, I recognize that there are transition issues > for > existing projects, particularly existing Open Source projects. > > --- Noel > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com > For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com > > ------=_Part_35073_14145054.1154419994984-- From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 08:16:10 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 39032 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 08:16:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 08:16:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 78072 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 08:16:04 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 77939 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 08:16:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 77926 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 08:16:04 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:16:04 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO py-out-1112.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:16:03 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c63so1181457pyc for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:15:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Ul8QPZXYnYVmKc5+MC5vmzQd47qA20gayiGmLq8vl8LaTLTGMdlQX7XaBBK8/BAdtpGlqXivcR7wMCktphOyZm/GOvCfa3wyQdkGBzFYgRzKe2AmlBZi047CCtMlGlbeYSY1daf0kvAQU+mp6osxXJ//WS8q6hvR9utUbFdZwW4= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id n1mr3295794qbq; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 01:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:15:42 +0200 From: "Johan Compagner" <julie93@example.com> To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_35093_26561450.1154420142677" References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_35093_26561450.1154420142677 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Your very welcome on the wicket lists. And i do like that you choose 2.0 I would really like much more feedback of users of the 2.0 trunk! johan On 8/1/06, Ross Gardler <julie93@example.com> wrote: > > Igor Vaynberg wrote: > > hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope > you > > realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like > > refactoring :) > > > > Thanks for the heads up. I do realise this. My project is non urgent and > I intend to be actively involved with development once I understand a > bit more. Hence choosing 2.0 > > See you on the Wicket dev lists... > > Ross > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com > For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com > > ------=_Part_35093_26561450.1154420142677-- From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 08:46:04 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 49903 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 08:45:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 08:45:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 22297 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 08:45:52 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 22163 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 08:45:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 22124 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 08:45:51 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:45:51 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:45:50 -0700 Received: from aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([83.161.120.155]) by mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <julie93@example.com> for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:45:23 +0100 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (really [83.161.120.155]) by aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060801084523.FAUC644.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@[83.161.120.155]> for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:45:23 +0100 Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:47:05 +0100 From: Gordon Sim <julie93@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Brian McCallister wrote: > If the goal is to create a standard protocol for messaging stuff, this > requires a lot of buy in from a wide range of parties. Keeping the > protocol behind closed doors and with a mysterious future sabotages > this. Transparency is, I believe, a major requirement for > accomplishing this goal, and the process is anything but transparent > at the moment. > I agree with you; a transparent, inclusive process is essential to building support for the protocol. I think all the members of the protocol working group would agree also. I would describe the future as vague in some of the details rather than mysterious. The intent has been made clear, namely that the protocol should be open and free for anyone to implement and should ultimately by controlled through an appropriate standards body. Before that happens, the current working group intends to work with a community of interested parties to ensure that the '1.0' release is fit for purpose. The current working group is open to new members and is eager for feedback from anyone. > Both of these points would be lightened if the folks presently > involved with the specification process seemed to recognize them as > issues. Your first point, if I understood it correctly, seems to be a question for the ASF, rather than the AMQP protocol specification group. With respect to the second point, as I state above, I think the need for an open, transparent and inclusive dialogue with all interested parties *is* recognised as essential for the protocol to fulfill its objectives. > To my reading, they are not recognized as issues, and there has been > no public discussion by the folks actually involved with the protocol > spec about this. The extent of it has been to say, more or less, that > they doesn't think there is a problem. I'm not sure whether you are referring here to a specific post(s) on this list or some other forum. In general though, there seems to be two questions: (i) is openness important and (ii) is openness currently achieved. Am I correct in assuming your concerns are related to the second of these? Can you give more detail on what you feel the problems are? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 09:01:52 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 54697 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 09:01:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 09:01:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 44708 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 09:01:49 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 44191 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 09:01:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 44180 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 09:01:47 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:01:47 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:01:45 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id x4so197393nfb for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:01:00 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=cJlzlE/jP0YuCSmSIRwHdkRCYfjEaBP64bgLDuX94Z7FgERqD+XXVsr7w1hFf6WXyk/lZrJZnq8JpKey8g7mcUC5SK/stRMNEqVhR+eu2w1Lb59mXfj3CQ94cHokwxastpPZ/DAdBEYv/Bshn03rP7GyHRz1SJMRIZNo2uQdBmc= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id u7mr189798hub; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 02:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:01:00 +0100 From: "James Strachan" <julie93@example.com> To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 7/30/06, Cliff Schmidt <julie93@example.com> wrote: > Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? I'd also like commitment from the folks-behind-the-closed-doors that any AMQP TCK will be freely available for Apache to use (maybe only for those who sign the necessary NDAs like when working with JCP / J2EE TCKS). Unless Apache gets full access to the AMQP TCKs then its really not possible for it to really implement the specification. So far in the Glassgow code at Redhat I just see an implementation of AMQP. Is there a TCK somewhere to test compliance with the specification? -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 10:53:15 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 91728 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 10:53:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 10:53:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 80222 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 10:53:11 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 79823 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 10:53:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 79802 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 10:53:09 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:53:09 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO bali.sjc.webweaving.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:53:07 -0700 Received: from bali.sjc.webweaving.org (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by bali.sjc.webweaving.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k71AqjRV041283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 03:52:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julie93@example.com) Received: (from lsimons@localhost) by bali.sjc.webweaving.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id k71Aqjtr041282 for julie93@example.com; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 03:52:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julie93@example.com) X-Authentication-Warning: bali.sjc.webweaving.org: lsimons set sender to julie93@example.com using -f Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 03:52:45 -0700 From: Leo Simons <julie93@example.com> To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Mail-Followup-To: Leo Simons <julie93@example.com>, julie93@example.com References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on bali.sjc.webweaving.org X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:30:14AM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: > > > Its a little bit itchy to read about "complying with rules" or about "who > > decides". When you get right down to it, legally, the person who decides > > is the VP. And I can count on the fingers of 0 hands how many times he > > laid down the law here in incubator land! > > To be clear, is this to be interpreted as a good thing or a bad thing? :-) Good, thank you :-) LSD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 13:14:26 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 41523 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 13:14:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 13:14:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 60105 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 13:14:20 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 59969 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 13:14:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 59957 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 13:14:20 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:14:20 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:14:19 -0700 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by mx1.redhat.com (83.161.120.15560308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k71DDwFr001548 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:13:58 -0400 Received: from mail.boston.redhat.com (mail.boston.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (83.161.120.15560308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k71DDv3L009234 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:13:57 -0400 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (dhcp83-71.boston.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by mail.boston.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k71DDulH019537 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:13:57 -0400 Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:17:39 -0400 From: Carl Trieloff <julie93@example.com> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N James, Anything that the Working group publishes / works on will be under the license already disclosed. As to TCK, there is a little bit of work in this area in the spec but it does not meet a definition of a TCK. The discussion is still ongoing as to what should the TCK look like. Many of the TCK's today are not that effective thus the debate. Also note there are no NDA's when working on any AMQP working group materials. Personally, I think the AMQP group will most likely publish something like a WS-Basic profile definition as apposed to writing a TCK, but that is not decided yet. If you would like to work on this please join the group or provide your suggestions for the group to consider. Regards Carl. James Strachan wrote: > On 7/30/06, Cliff Schmidt <julie93@example.com> wrote: >> Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? > > I'd also like commitment from the folks-behind-the-closed-doors that > any AMQP TCK will be freely available for Apache to use (maybe only > for those who sign the necessary NDAs like when working with JCP / > J2EE TCKS). Unless Apache gets full access to the AMQP TCKs then its > really not possible for it to really implement the specification. > > So far in the Glassgow code at Redhat I just see an implementation of > AMQP. Is there a TCK somewhere to test compliance with the > specification? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 15:42:52 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 4076 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 15:42:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 15:42:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 80811 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 15:42:47 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 80485 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 15:42:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 80472 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 15:42:45 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:42:45 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nz-out-0102.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:42:41 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id n29so270797nzf for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:42:18 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=googlemail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:x-google-sender-auth; b=F/EdJ4Gx1FT65mYhAmLDOxWPTI2FTOq3ivH/ZXuc/6xjhh/QH7omG0nd2fhNmev+H/AVSA7ujiVU9bVKxKnDNhWSUGXNjGR0k/fjWgSZENs1507BuUyJizfzKngmOdnvmxx+ytVtc2lfUUxNRWjHH1aNEWu6sFygYwgP73qvwVw= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id d1mr4998929qbs; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:42:18 +0100 From: "Pete Robbins" <julie93@example.com> Sender: julie93@example.com To: julie93@example.com Subject: [ANNOUNCE] Tuscany C++ Milestone 1 Release Cc: julie93@example.com, julie93@example.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_48831_5159303.1154446938596" X-Google-Sender-Auth: e98652e9e0469311 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_48831_5159303.1154446938596 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline The Apache Tuscany community is pleased to announce its first C++ milestone release. You can download binary and source distributions from: http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/downloads.html For further information, visit our web site at: http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany Introduction ======== Tuscany C++ provides a C++ implementation of the Service Component Architecture (SCA) and Service Data Objects (SDO) specifications. For pointers to the specification documents, visit our documentation page at: http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/documentation.html Incubation ======== Tuscany is an effort undergoing incubation at the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Web Services PMC. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF. Release Summary ============= Tuscany SCA C++ provides a runtime implementation for the Service Component Architecture 0.9 Assembly Model and C++ Client and Implementation specifications. Key features include: - Module assembly using SCDL - Support for C++ component implementation types - Component interfaces described by C++ classes - Axis2/C Web Service binding for EntryPoint and ExternalService - Sample demonstrating wiring, service location and invocation between C++ components Tuscany SDO C++ is an implementation of the Service Data Objects 2.0specification for C++ developers. Key features include: - Dynamic data object support - Type loading from XSD Schema - XML serialisation/deserialisation - Helper classes (XMLHelper, XSDHelper,DataFactory, etc.) - Simple example programs Please feel free to send any feedback to our mailing lists: julie93@example.com julie93@example.com Any contribution in the form of coding, testing, improving the documentation, and reporting bugs is always welcome. For more information on how to get involved with the development of Tuscany, visit our Get Involved page at: http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/get-involved.html Thank you for your interest in Apache Tuscany! -- Pete ------=_Part_48831_5159303.1154446938596-- From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 16:10:53 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 12366 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 16:10:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 16:10:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 37596 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 16:10:49 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 37403 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 16:10:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 37380 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 16:10:40 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:10:40 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF julie93@example.com) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO rune.pobox.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:10:38 -0700 Received: from rune (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7292F7B187 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (dsl017-051-162.sfo4.dsl.speakeasy.net [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB4F214D for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <julie93@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Brian McCallister <julie93@example.com> Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:10:06 -0700 To: julie93@example.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Aug 1, 2006, at 1:47 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: > The current working group is open to new members and is eager for > feedback from anyone. Where are the archives of the discussions that have gotten it this far so I can understand what is driving the process and be able to contribute? What mailing list do I subscribe to in order to join the discussion? -Brian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 16:33:35 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 22428 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 16:33:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 16:33:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 98773 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 16:33:23 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 98659 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 16:33:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 98638 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 16:33:23 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:33:23 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:33:21 -0700 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by mx1.redhat.com (83.161.120.15560308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k71GX0MH023136 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:33:00 -0400 Received: from mail.boston.redhat.com (mail.boston.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (83.161.120.15560308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k71GWtrM014346 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:32:55 -0400 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (dhcp83-71.boston.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by mail.boston.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k71GWsw3009702 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:32:54 -0400 Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:36:36 -0400 From: Carl Trieloff <julie93@example.com> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 lists for anyone to read, access and interact with the working group. Thanks for the feedback Carl. Brian McCallister wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2006, at 1:47 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: > >> The current working group is open to new members and is eager for >> feedback from anyone. > > Where are the archives of the discussions that have gotten it this far > so I can understand what is driving the process and be able to > contribute? What mailing list do I subscribe to in order to join the > discussion? > > -Brian > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com > For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 17:33:36 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 46185 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 17:33:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 17:33:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 88559 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 17:33:30 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 88437 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 17:33:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 88426 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 17:33:29 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:33:29 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF julie93@example.com) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO proof.pobox.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:33:28 -0700 Received: from proof (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by proof.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A31724E13 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (dsl017-051-162.sfo4.dsl.speakeasy.net [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by proof.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ECD1694C3 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <julie93@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Brian McCallister <julie93@example.com> Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:32:57 -0700 To: julie93@example.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:36 AM, 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 lists for anyone to > read, access and interact with the working group. Great! Is it the intention of the spec group members to switch the primary discussion and real work to the public list? Also, the question from my email before last is still unanswered: can the spec be forked if the process becomes an insurmountable obstacle for the Glasgow project? I realize this is really based on the terms in the license, but not being a lawyer, can you at least clarify the intentions of the group regarding this? -Brian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 17:45:36 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 51455 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 17:45:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 17:45:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 10466 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 17:45:22 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 10384 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 17:45:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 10123 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 17:45:21 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:45:21 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO py-out-1112.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:45:13 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c63so1418840pyc for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:44:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hOKvK0SH/C3NHSoGERF8YMdmPgLAtPElUb3grV7N0wxNaCxy+NYknTjLAJoVkjVeE4V8peBa8DRn3unYJfjCpxKs0Clp0G3AK5VsYVgPCddIFRBYAGp4pe0RLI5l4QSCXg6I627dbCEI+6FNkFqIXNOGV9/vYEAu8wt1Gd8SOyE= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id n13mr6074511pym; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:44:52 -0700 From: "Cliff Schmidt" <julie93@example.com> To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 8/1/06, Brian McCallister <julie93@example.com> wrote: > Also, the question from my email before last is still unanswered: can > the spec be forked if the process becomes an insurmountable obstacle > for the Glasgow project? I realize this is really based on the terms > in the license, but not being a lawyer, can you at least clarify the > intentions of the group regarding this? Brian, Could you clarify whether you are asking if the Glasgow project could continue in a different direction from the spec, or whether the spec, itself, could be changed/forked and distributed by the ASF? Cliff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 18:03:43 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 66925 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 18:03:41 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 18:03:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 42792 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:03:39 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 42659 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:03:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 42648 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 18:03:38 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:03:38 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF julie93@example.com) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO rune.pobox.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:03:38 -0700 Received: from rune (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105B37B93C for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (dsl017-051-162.sfo4.dsl.speakeasy.net [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A533B641 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:03:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <julie93@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Brian McCallister <julie93@example.com> Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:03:05 -0700 To: julie93@example.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: > Could you clarify whether you are asking if the Glasgow project could > continue in a different direction from the spec, or whether the spec, > itself, could be changed/forked and distributed by the ASF? If something were to happen to cause development to stop on the spec, the licensing terms were to change, etc, could folks (including Glasgow) basically use the last released version as a starting point for continued protocol development, or would the licensing terms (and grants of rights specifically tied to use of this protocol based on this document) force the project and existing users to throw things away and develop something new which would not infringe. -Brian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 18:30:38 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 82738 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 18:30:38 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 18:30:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 478 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:30:35 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 314 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:30:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 300 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 18:30:35 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:30:35 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:30:33 -0700 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by mx1.redhat.com (83.161.120.15560308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k71IUBQ4005121 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:30:11 -0400 Received: from mail.boston.redhat.com (mail.boston.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (83.161.120.15560308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k71IUB8i017462 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:30:11 -0400 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (dhcp83-71.boston.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by mail.boston.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k71IUAw3023566 for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:30:11 -0400 Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:33:53 -0400 From: Carl Trieloff <julie93@example.com> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Brian McCallister wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: > >> Could you clarify whether you are asking if the Glasgow project could >> continue in a different direction from the spec, or whether the spec, >> itself, could be changed/forked and distributed by the ASF? > > If something were to happen to cause development to stop on the spec, > the licensing terms were to change, etc, could folks (including > Glasgow) basically use the last released version as a starting point > for continued protocol development, - yes > or would the licensing terms (and grants of rights specifically tied > to use of this protocol based on this document) force the project and > existing users to throw things away and develop something new which > would not infringe. > > -Brian > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com > For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 18:36:51 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 85278 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 18:36:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 18:36:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 18068 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:36:43 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 17944 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:36:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 17933 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 18:36:42 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:36:42 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO relay03.pair.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:36:41 -0700 Received: (qmail 94051 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 18:36:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 18:36:18 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 83.161.120.155 Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <julie93@example.com> To: julie93@example.com Cc: julie93@example.com In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Lanka Software Foundation Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:06:16 +0530 Message-Id: <julie93@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 83.161.120.155 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 lists for anyone to > read, access and interact with the working group. Correction: W3C working groups do *all* technical work in public mailing lists that are open to all. That change occurred probably 5+ years ago. Sanjiva. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 18:42:02 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 87723 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 18:41:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 18:41:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 31290 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:41:56 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 31078 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:41:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 31067 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 18:41:55 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:41:55 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:41:54 -0700 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by mx1.redhat.com (83.161.120.15560308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k71IfW8J009618; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:41:32 -0400 Received: from mail.boston.redhat.com (mail.boston.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (83.161.120.15560308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k71IfW8B021084; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:41:32 -0400 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (dhcp83-71.boston.redhat.com [83.161.120.155]) by mail.boston.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k71IfVw3024957; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:41:31 -0400 Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:45:14 -0400 From: Carl Trieloff <julie93@example.com> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <julie93@example.com> CC: julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050002010501060704000000" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --------------050002010501060704000000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks, Noted, I have been involved more with OASIS in recent years. 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 lists for anyone to >> read, access and interact with the working group. >> > > Correction: W3C working groups do *all* technical work in public mailing > lists that are open to all. > > That change occurred probably 5+ years ago. > > Sanjiva. > > > --------------050002010501060704000000-- From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 18:50:19 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 91494 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 18:50:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 18:50:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 38611 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:50:16 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 38535 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 18:50:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 38524 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 18:50:16 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:50:16 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:50:15 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u40so1490689ugc for <julie93@example.com>; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:49:54 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dp3maVcjnNRYwmPl0TiSGhu/dTdxM7TXK0KQrjVkyEPRmGpy7mYeTCEAZUhZEryl35h1DF8bSWNE7qT8YBu2eEvgHjaQcR9V6E1BBf0thj02wbYrt5IAIAhJasaH7qFGGZJdayKFnuF9113RvjvC567IE5nQ5QQ2tpMgJKt07Rk= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id c17mr1446493ugm; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <julie93@example.com> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:49:53 -0400 From: "Davanum Srinivas" <julie93@example.com> Reply-To: julie93@example.com To: julie93@example.com, julie93@example.com Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) In-Reply-To: <julie93@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> <julie93@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N FWIW, OASIS *public* email archives are available here: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ -- dims On 8/1/06, Carl Trieloff <julie93@example.com> wrote: > > Thanks, > Noted, I have been involved more with OASIS in recent years. > > 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 lists for anyone to > >> read, access and interact with the working group. > >> > > > > Correction: W3C working groups do *all* technical work in public mailing > > lists that are open to all. > > > > That change occurred probably 5+ years ago. > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > > > > > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: julie93@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: julie93@example.com From general-returnjulie93@example.com Tue Aug 01 19:16:54 2006 Return-Path: <general-returnjulie93@example.com> Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 2805 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 19:16:52 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 19:16:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 94877 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 19:16:49 -0000 Delivered-To: julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 94718 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 19:16:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact julie93@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:julie93@example.com> List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org> Reply-To: julie93@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list julie93@example.com Received: (qmail 94707 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 19:16:48 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:16:48 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of julie93@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO wx-out-0102.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29)
{'source': 'Apache Software Foundation Public Mail Archives'}