21 Nov 2009 00:48
Discussion unlocked.
The discussion named svn-org (svn-org@...) has been unlocked in the subversion project. You may now use it again normally.
21 Nov 2009 00:12
Discussion locked.
The discussion named svn-org (svn-org@...) has been locked in the subversion project. Access to it is now read-only.
28 Jun 2008 17:23
Minor minutes clarification
Can I commit the following clarification, or should only the Secretary
or his designate touch the minutes?
Max.
Index: meetings/2008-03-15-members-meeting.txt
===================================================================
--- meetings/2008-03-15-members-meeting.txt (revision 153)
+++ meetings/2008-03-15-members-meeting.txt (working copy)
<at> <at> -110,6 +110,12 <at> <at>
added since the last meeting are officially now 'members' of the
corporation.
+ (For reference, the new members were:
+ a. Kamesh Jayachandran <kamesh@...>
+ b. Mark Phippard <mphippard@...>
+ c. Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@...>
+ )
+
* Election of directors
Karl Fogel, Ben Collins-Sussman, Brian Fitzpatrick, C. Michael
28 Jun 2007 23:56
Re: RFC: Subversion trademark policy
I've committed more changes to the trademark policy, based on everyone's feedback. The latest version is here: http://subversion.org/legal/trademark-policy.html It's loose about uses of "SVN" and strict about "Subversion", as we discussed. For the moment, please ignore the question of which marks we actually have registered, since some of those are still in process. We can easily update the policy to require "(TM)" instead of "(R)", or make whatever other adjustments are needed, when the time comes. So, are we ready to make it official? I don't know of any concerns left unaddressed now. As Mike Pilato pointed out, there are only two external projects using the full word "Subversion" in their names: "CW Subversion" (which could be renamed "CWSVN -- Subversion(R) integrationfor Code Warrior(R)) "SubversionSharp" (which could be renamed "SVNSharp") We could ask them to rename. If they don't, and we don't force the issue, we could just grandfather them in, and make sure to put a prominent note to that effect next to their names on links.html, and mention them explicitly in an addendum to the policy. (Or maybe there are other solutions; point is, the existence of those two projects needn't be a factor here.)(Continue reading)
RSS Feed