Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C7E84B04C for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:47:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 16376 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2012 09:38:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 15632 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2012 09:37:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 14188 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jan 2012 09:32:27 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:32:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-ee0-f47.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username bdelacretaz, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:32:27 +0000 Received: by eekb47 with SMTP id b47so105846eek.6 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:32:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.52.200 with SMTP id e48mr7450368eec.72.1326187945214; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:32:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.29.133 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:32:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:32:25 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Podling rename, vote needed? From: Bertrand Delacretaz To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote: > ...As discussed during the Callback proposal phase [1], the podling > community wasn't too certain about the "Callback" name and thus after > some discussion they recently voted [2] on adopting the new name > "Apache Cordova". The vote and its result was mentioned in the > December status report [3]. > > Now the question came up [4] about whether such a rename needs to be > explicitly approved by a vote of the IPCM... The way you're handling it is perfectly fine IMO - the Incubator PMC is now officially informed of the change, if someone has a problem with the new name they can bring it up. No need for a formal vote IMO. -Bertrand