[VOTE] [BRANCH] Creation of the Release Branch "release10.04"

[samhamilton]

+1

On 28/04/2010 16:10, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) named "release10.04".
> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug fixes only, no new features.
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
> [ -1] do not create the branch
>
> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
> For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo

[Scott Gray-2]

+1

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 28/04/2010, at 8:10 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) named "release10.04".
> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug fixes only, no new features.
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
> [ -1] do not create the branch
>
> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
> For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo

[Vikas Mayur-2]

+1

Regards
Vikas

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet)
> named "release10.04".
> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created
> over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug fixes
> only, no new features.
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
> [ -1] do not create the branch
>
> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are
> more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
> For more details about this process please read this
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>

[Ratnesh Upadhyay]

+1

Regards,
--
Ratnesh Upadhyay
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Vikas Mayur <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> Regards
> Vikas
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release
> yet)
> > named "release10.04".
> > This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created
> > over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug
> fixes
> > only, no new features.
> >
> > Vote:
> >
> > [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
> > [ -1] do not create the branch
> >
> > We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there
> are
> > more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
> > For more details about this process please read this
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
>

[Chirag Manocha-3]

+1

Regards
--
Chirag Manocha
Emforium
www.allinsoftware.com



----- "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:40:03 PM
> Subject: [VOTE] [BRANCH] Creation of the Release Branch "release10.04"
>
> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release
> yet) named "release10.04".
> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be
> created over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be
> for bug fixes only, no new features.
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
> [ -1] do not create the branch
>
> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there
> are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
> For more details about this process please read this
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo

[Bilgin Ibryam-2]

 + 1

Bilgin

> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) named "release10.04".
> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug fixes only, no new features.
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
> [ -1] do not create the branch
>
> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
> For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>  

[Mridul Pathak-2]

+1

--
Thanks & Regards,
Mridul Pathak


On Apr 28, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) named "release10.04".
> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug fixes only, no new features.
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
> [ -1] do not create the branch
>
> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
> For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo

[David E. Jones-2]

That's a timely quote. What baffles me is that anyone would think that computer automation would reduce the size of any sort of bureau. People certainly do believe that though... recent evidence of that is the recent political claim that we can reduce healthcare costs by investing in computer automation. It's telling that almost no one in the technology industry disputed this claim... ;)

The opposite is really quite true, but IMO only because that's the way things are designed. 99% of the time automation is used to enable centralization and increase bureaucracy. There's a good reason for that: bureaucracies can only increase to a certain level with a certain set of technologies and to grow beyond that without causing implosion (the only way they reduce in size) requires new technology. Unfortunately large bureaucracies (both public and private) fund most technology development and so most technology development is designed to help bureaucracies increase in size. QED.

However, it doesn't have to be that way. Technology can be designed for different things, like facilitating decentralization by helping individuals and small groups compete with large ones. Large organizations are far less efficient than small ones, and usually have enormous overhead (which is usually the whole point of the large organization: to support the large overhead). If individuals and small organizations had the means to collaborate without forming a large, centralized organization then they could likely compete fairly well.  

So why doesn't that happen? There seem to be lots of things getting in the way, but the first is the nearly universal belief that large organizations exist to take care of our needs and are beneficent by nature, so even what I've written above would be considered "quackery" and a "conspiracy theory"... and that's only barrier #1! Other barriers get much worse... even current IP law makes it almost impossible for smaller organizations to collaborate with distributed IP ownership and compete with an organization that centrally owns the IP. For example, if small manufacturers would collaborate on designs and standards and then compete on implementation and price then it would be far better for consumers than producers that create intentional incompatibility and lock-in, and it would facilitate distributed organizations instead of centralized ones.

Could that happen in our culture and with current public and private forces? IMO yes, in a couple of ways. Large organizations usually end in collapse, opening opportunities for smaller ones to fill the vacuum. Large orgs also tend to step on people, and when enough people get stepped on they'll form a sufficiently large group of independents working together to effectively compete even if the large org is strong. As one who has tried though... the barriers to that are astounding, partly because most people by nature prefer competition to collaboration. I guess that brings us back to where we started, so I'll get back to work. :)

-David


On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:31 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> Data expands to fill the space available for storage.
> A modern version is that no amount of computer automation will reduce
> the size of a bureaucracy
> parkinson laws by Heathcote Parkinson
> Boy that dates me.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law
>
> =========================
> BJ Freeman
> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> Linkedin
> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
>
>
> David E Jones sent the following on 4/28/2010 1:45 AM:
>> +1
>>
>> -David
>>
>> P.S. Quick, get your foot in the door! Throw in buggy stuff while you have a chance... you can commit bug fixes later but not new features. ;)
>>
>> P.P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm becoming obsessed with looking at rule systems and guessing at behavior people will use to game the system.
>>
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:10 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) named "release10.04".
>>> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug fixes only, no new features.
>>>
>>> Vote:
>>>
>>> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
>>> [ -1] do not create the branch
>>>
>>> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
>>> For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>
>

[Brajesh Patel-2]

+1

Brajesh Patel

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) named "release10.04".
> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug fixes only, no new features.
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
> [ -1] do not create the branch
>
> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
> For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>  

[BJ Freeman]

not sure if you read the paper Heathcote parkinson publish in 1955, but
he found the same bureaucracy growth in the Admiralty when the need for
it was diminishing.
http://www.economist.com/business-finance/management/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14116121
he develop laws based on it.
The Law of Multiplication of Subordinates
The Law of Multiplication of Work

So the process has just taken on new trapping.

=========================
BJ Freeman
http://bjfreeman.elance.com
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>

Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Linkedin
<http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>


David E Jones sent the following on 4/30/2010 4:20 PM:

> That's a timely quote. What baffles me is that anyone would think that computer automation would reduce the size of any sort of bureau. People certainly do believe that though... recent evidence of that is the recent political claim that we can reduce healthcare costs by investing in computer automation. It's telling that almost no one in the technology industry disputed this claim... ;)
>
> The opposite is really quite true, but IMO only because that's the way things are designed. 99% of the time automation is used to enable centralization and increase bureaucracy. There's a good reason for that: bureaucracies can only increase to a certain level with a certain set of technologies and to grow beyond that without causing implosion (the only way they reduce in size) requires new technology. Unfortunately large bureaucracies (both public and private) fund most technology development and so most technology development is designed to help bureaucracies increase in size. QED.
>
> However, it doesn't have to be that way. Technology can be designed for different things, like facilitating decentralization by helping individuals and small groups compete with large ones. Large organizations are far less efficient than small ones, and usually have enormous overhead (which is usually the whole point of the large organization: to support the large overhead). If individuals and small organizations had the means to collaborate without forming a large, centralized organization then they could likely compete fairly well.  
>
> So why doesn't that happen? There seem to be lots of things getting in the way, but the first is the nearly universal belief that large organizations exist to take care of our needs and are beneficent by nature, so even what I've written above would be considered "quackery" and a "conspiracy theory"... and that's only barrier #1! Other barriers get much worse... even current IP law makes it almost impossible for smaller organizations to collaborate with distributed IP ownership and compete with an organization that centrally owns the IP. For example, if small manufacturers would collaborate on designs and standards and then compete on implementation and price then it would be far better for consumers than producers that create intentional incompatibility and lock-in, and it would facilitate distributed organizations instead of centralized ones.
>
> Could that happen in our culture and with current public and private forces? IMO yes, in a couple of ways. Large organizations usually end in collapse, opening opportunities for smaller ones to fill the vacuum. Large orgs also tend to step on people, and when enough people get stepped on they'll form a sufficiently large group of independents working together to effectively compete even if the large org is strong. As one who has tried though... the barriers to that are astounding, partly because most people by nature prefer competition to collaboration. I guess that brings us back to where we started, so I'll get back to work. :)
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:31 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
>> Data expands to fill the space available for storage.
>> A modern version is that no amount of computer automation will reduce
>> the size of a bureaucracy
>> parkinson laws by Heathcote Parkinson
>> Boy that dates me.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law
>>
>> =========================
>> BJ Freeman
>> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>
>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>
>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>> Linkedin
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
>>
>>
>> David E Jones sent the following on 4/28/2010 1:45 AM:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>> P.S. Quick, get your foot in the door! Throw in buggy stuff while you have a chance... you can commit bug fixes later but not new features. ;)
>>>
>>> P.P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm becoming obsessed with looking at rule systems and guessing at behavior people will use to game the system.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:10 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) named "release10.04".
>>>> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug fixes only, no new features.
>>>>
>>>> Vote:
>>>>
>>>> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
>>>> [ -1] do not create the branch
>>>>
>>>> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
>>>> For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

+1

Jacopo

On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) named "release10.04".
> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created over time out of it: all the commits in this  branch will be for bug fixes only, no new features.
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04"
> [ -1] do not create the branch
>
> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1)
> For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo