From general-return-78-apmail-logging-general-archive=logging.apache.org@logging.apache.org Tue Jan 06 03:27:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-logging-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9529 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2004 03:27:48 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jan 2004 03:27:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 67109 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2004 03:27:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-general-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 67085 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2004 03:27:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: "Logging General" Delivered-To: mailing list general@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 67072 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2004 03:27:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com) (66.163.168.184) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jan 2004 03:27:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hogwarts) (m-m-womack@sbcglobal.net@68.122.193.29 with login) by smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jan 2004 03:27:39 -0000 Message-ID: <002601c3d405$08d35b20$6401a8c0@hogwarts> From: "Mark Womack" To: "Logging General" References: <5.2.1.1.0.20040105185707.027b8430@mail.qos.ch> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:27:37 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N +1 On the point of the license and the code, there is some kind of review that will take place? Even though the code is shipped with the ASF license, if the project or committers are not part of the ASF, it does not mean the ASF owns it or takes liability for it, does it? Otherwise, the ASF would be liable/support code that it is not really responsible for. It would mean that anyone could assign code ownership to the ASF without the ASF reviewing/accepting it. That doesn't sound right to me. So, while I agree that the ASF license being in the log4net code is a good indication of the intent to distribute it under the ASF/ASF-like license, some kind of review should still take place. -Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ceki Gülcü" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:04 AM Subject: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers Hello all, Given that including log4net into Apache Logging Services is within the mandate of the LS project, given that log4net already ships with an Apache License and ASF copyright and given that log4net people have expressed interest in joining the Logging Services project, I propose that log4net committers should be granted committer access once they have sent in their CLAs. Here is my vote: [X] +1, grant committer access to log4net developers with CLA [ ] 0, I don't know/care [ ] -1, no, that's a bad idea because... -- Ceki Gülcü For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual" ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp