Date   

More expanded ideas for SPDX WG

Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...>
 

Hi Everyone,

Based on the meeting we had at LinuxCon NA, I am sending some detailed examples of the idea I discussed during that meeting.
Some fall under the Business team specifically, others are cross-teams.
I think these would help the WG in more ways than one. If the WG decides to adopt some of these, I am willing to help out. 

Thanks,
Ibrahim 


Re: Followup question after Linuxcon talk

Manbeck, Jack
 

Robert,

I'm glad to hear that and thanks for your kind words.

Your question is an interesting one and it is not a use case that we may have specifically solved yet in that we don't have a field that expresses there is a mandatory dependency on source that needs to be fetched. Here are my thoughts. Ideally you could point to the code with the Package Download Location field (4.5). That would work if all the code they need is at one location (as that field only allows one instance I believe). To clarify that the there is a code dependency (this the spec doesn't do explicitly) you could add information to one of the many optional comment fields in the SPDX: For example, the Source Information field (4.9), Creator Comments (3.3) etc.

Keep us up to date with how this progresses. I think documenting solutions to real world problems with SPDX will be valuable for us to capture and put on the site for others and for making adjustments to the specification as needed. Possibly you could even write up your solution and contribute it back?

We may need to take this discussion off of the general list.


Jack

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-bounces@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Bracewell, Robert
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 12:03 AM
To: spdx@lists.spdx.org
Subject: Followup question after Linuxcon talk

Thanks for a great discussion on spdx its got me interested in wrapping spdx into my current release activities as a release manager.

Say for example I ship an SDK and for a customer to use this SDK they need to download a number of other files that were unable to ship within the package. What would be the best way with spdx to indicate such? Ideally if I could ship them I would but for reasons outside of my control I am unable to do so.

To date I have been using Nexus pro to decorate the artifacts that make up the bill of materials by adding metadata to this tool. The metadata i've been storing is inline with what spdx already tracks. I wrote my own Maven plugins to take care of the metadata aspect of adding it and pulling it out of Nexus when producing the bill of materials. What I am thinking is that instead of storing metadata i'll just attach an spdx file as an attached artifact with a classifier and for every artifact that is subsequently packaged it will just pull down the spdx files and aggregate.

Looks like I need to do some reading of the spec and whitepapers etc to get up to speed.

--
Robert
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Re: Followup question after Linuxcon talk

Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...>
 

Robert,

Thanks for your message and joining the list. You pose an interesting scenario! While the SPDX is typically provided with the corresponding code I suspect there might be some way that this could be accomplished or communicated -- perhaps using some of the comment fields or maybe it makes sense to create and contribute SPDX for the code you're not shipping but I will defer to the technical experts on the list.


Regards,
Scott Lamons
SPDX Business Team

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-bounces@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Bracewell, Robert
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:03 PM
To: spdx@lists.spdx.org
Subject: Followup question after Linuxcon talk

Thanks for a great discussion on spdx its got me interested in wrapping spdx into my current release activities as a release manager.

Say for example I ship an SDK and for a customer to use this SDK they need to download a number of other files that were unable to ship within the package. What would be the best way with spdx to indicate such? Ideally if I could ship them I would but for reasons outside of my control I am unable to do so.

To date I have been using Nexus pro to decorate the artifacts that make up the bill of materials by adding metadata to this tool. The metadata i've been storing is inline with what spdx already tracks. I wrote my own Maven plugins to take care of the metadata aspect of adding it and pulling it out of Nexus when producing the bill of materials. What I am thinking is that instead of storing metadata i'll just attach an spdx file as an attached artifact with a classifier and for every artifact that is subsequently packaged it will just pull down the spdx files and aggregate.

Looks like I need to do some reading of the spec and whitepapers etc to get up to speed.

--
Robert
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Website Update

Manbeck, Jack
 

All,

 

As a follow up on our actions the web re-vamp team has been and continues to work to improve the quality of our website. You may already have noticed a few changes. Our initial focus has been on pruning empty pages, fixing links and consolidating / re-wording some content to make things easier to find and understand and we are almost done with that first pass. Over the course of the next month we will be focusing on other items that were submitted and more specifically on the content.

 

Best Regards,

 

Web re-vamp team


Followup question after Linuxcon talk

Bracewell, Robert <rbracewe@...>
 

Thanks for a great discussion on spdx its got me interested in wrapping spdx into my current release activities as a release manager.

Say for example I ship an SDK and for a customer to use this SDK they need to download a number of other files that were unable to ship within the package. What would be the best way with spdx to indicate such? Ideally if I could ship them I would but for reasons outside of my control I am unable to do so.

To date I have been using Nexus pro to decorate the artifacts that make up the bill of materials by adding metadata to this tool. The metadata i've been storing is inline with what spdx already tracks. I wrote my own Maven plugins to take care of the metadata aspect of adding it and pulling it out of Nexus when producing the bill of materials. What I am thinking is that instead of storing metadata i'll just attach an spdx file as an attached artifact with a classifier and for every artifact that is subsequently packaged it will just pull down the spdx files and aggregate.

Looks like I need to do some reading of the spec and whitepapers etc to get up to speed.

--
Robert


SPDX 1.1 now available

kate.stewart@...
 

The SPDX team is proud to announces that the 1.1 version of the specification is now available, and replaces 1.0 as the current recommended version to work from.

The 1.1 version of the specification is posted to:
http://www.spdx.org/content/spdx-specification

The original 1.0 version can be found at:
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification

Many thank yous to the members of the technical, legal and business teams for their excellent input over the last year as we refined the original version and incorporated the early adopters feedback. An extra special thank you to those members who provided excellent detailed editorial reviews, quick spins to incorporate the changes, and feedback in the last push to get this version published in time for LinuxCon. :)

Kate


updated draft: 20120826 now available.

kate.stewart@...
 

Thank you for the comments, all change requests received to date
have been made in DRAFT 20120826, available at:
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification

Please let me know you spot any other concerns.
DRAFT designation will be removed on Tuesday.

Thanks, Kate


Specific changes made to 20120826 draft:

Page 9: section: 2.2.1 - typo back-to back use of "of of" - FIXED
Page 15: Section: 4.5.1 - misspelling determination - FIXED
Page 15: section 4.6.1 - misspelling insufficient" - FIXED
Page 16: section 4.7.4 - misspelling " Preferred" - FIXED
Page 17: section 4.8.4 - typo use of "on on" - FIXED
Page 20: section 4.12.1 - delete "a" from ...as a "disjunctive" licenses. - FIXED
Page 21: section 4.12.5 - replace "bracket s" w/"parentheses" - FIXED
Page 23: section 4.15.5 & 4.15.6 - capitalize gnu c (GNU C) and add "." - FIXED
Page 23: section 4.16.5 & 4.16.6 - Provide more realistic text example.
- FIXED - inserted one sentence description of GNU C Library.
Page 25: section 5.3.7 - </licenseId> should be </licenseName> - FIXED
Page 25: section 5.3.3 - this section appears out of place. It has no label and it is position between Intent & Cardinality - REMOVED
Page 26: Section 5.5.6 - misspelling "standard" -FIXED
Page 28: Section 6.3.1 - typo "filein" - FIXED "file in"
Page 29: Section 6.4.1 (continued) - mentions the disjunctive option but not the conjunctive option. - FIXED. added conjunctive reference.
Page 33: Section 6.11.12 - fix typo-> infromration - FIXED
Page 35: Section 7.1.2 - typo - forgot "." - FIXED
Page 36: Section 7.3.6 - misspelling "conluded" - FIXED, and in 7.3.5 too.

Appendix II: update to use 1.1-DRAFT (24 Aug 2012 17:18 UTC/6b70e2)
- title updated from Vocabulary to SPDX(R) Vocabulary Specification
- TM --> (R)
- SdpxDocument -> SpdxDocument

--- On Wed, 8/22/12, kate.stewart@att.net <kate.stewart@att.net> wrote:

From: kate.stewart@att.net <kate.stewart@att.net>
Subject: updated draft: 20120822a now available.
To: "spdx@lists.spdx.org" <spdx@lists.spdx.org>
Cc: "spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org" <spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2012, 8:41 PM
Thank you to everyone who submitted
comments and bugs.  :)

The bugzilla bugs with the spec itself, targetted to 1.1,
are now all resolved, and written comments provided so far
by email have been addressed to the best of my knowledge.

New version of the .doc and .pdf has been uploaded to
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification

Current version is:
http://www.spdx.org/system/files/spdx-1.1-rc20120822a.pdf

Please let me know if I've overlooked some comment.

Thanks, Kate


Fixes included:
- Bug 1039 - Wrong cross-reference in 4.12.2
- Bug 1043 - Inconsistency between concluded and declared
licenses
- Bug 1044 - Example is wrong in 4.13 Comments on Licence
- Bug 1045 - Spelling error in Review Comments
- Marc-Etienne Vargenau, Scott Lamons, Pierre Lapointe added
to thank you list
- Page 7: Section 1.7.2 correct the typo 201w -> 2012 -
FIXED
- Page 8: Section 2 minor word smithing -> "that enables
forward and backward compatibility for processing tools." -
FIXED
- Page 9: Section 2.3.1 missing "." - FIXED
- Page 13: Section 4.1.6 -RDF/XML example value should be:
glibc (not glibc 2.11.1). That is, it should be the same as
the Tag example. -FIXED
- Page 14: Section 4.3.6 -RDF/XML example value should be:
glibc-2.11.1.tar.gz (not glibc 2.11.1). That is, it should
be the same as the Tag example. - FIXED
Page 15: Section 4.5.1 - FSF -> spell out to be Free
Software Foundation -FIXED
Page 16: Section 4.7.2 - word smithing " It also permits one
to embedded the SPDX file within..." - FIXED

After Marc-Etienne called my attention to the overlooked
bugs,  I did a wider search and:
Bug 979 - SPDX licenses are disconnected from other
published versions of the license - FIXED (by section 5.4)
Bug 1016 - Publish description of structure and usage of
license list
- FIXED (by License Class in RDF in Appendix II and http://www.spdx.org/content/spdx-license-list)
Bug 1018 - Proposal to add comments to all concrete classes
- FIXED
(2.3, 3.3, 5.5, 6.11. 7.3 in spec)
Bug 1037 - Standard license properties are documented in RDF
but not in the spec- FIXED (see class:License in Appendix
II)

More info needed:
- Page 5: Section 1.3 minor word smithing  - not
spotting this change in the version attached to email
feedback.
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


ADMS.SW 1.0 integration with SPDX

Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@...>
 

Hi.

I had sent messages about ADMS.FOSS (old name) / ADMS.SW (new name) in
the past, so here's a bit of followup.

FYI, the ADMS.SW 1.0 specifications [0] reuses some bits from SPDX :
ADMS.SW Software Packages are designed subclasses of SPDX Packages, and
have an optional 'checksum' property, that is mapped to an SPDX Package
Checksum in the RDF implementation of ADMS.SW 1.0.

I hope that will increase reuse and interoperability between Software
Catalogues (including development forges) using ADMS.SW and other SPDX
compatible tools.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

[0] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/adms_foss/release/release100
--
Olivier BERGER
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France)


Action Required: SPDX 1.1 Press Release

Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...>
 

Jennifer Cloer (Linux Foundation PR)  and I are finalizing a press release for SPDX 1.1 which will be very similar in structure to what we did for SPDX 1.0 last year.   This is scheduled to hit the wire next Thursday morning (same day as the SPDX Panel Discussion) and we would like to reference companies, projects, and institutions that have been involved in developing, supporting, implementing, or adopting the specification.      If you wish to be listed Jennifer will need your company approval  by close of business (5pm US Pacific time) next Monday 8/27 -- please reply directly to her.     You are also welcome and encouraged to provide a supporting statement as well although Jennifer will retain final decision making on whether it's included or not. 

Thanks,

 

Scott Lamons

SPDX Business Working Group

HP Open Source Program Office

970-898-2804

 


SPDX General Meeting Minutes and Important Notice

Philip Odence
 


Notice: We are trying to finalize the 1.1 spec. Tonight Kate is working through a handful of known typos in this version. 


The Tech Team is fine with the content. Unless anyone raises an alarm in the next few days, we will declare it the official 1.1 version.


F2F mtg in Sept / Oct

Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...>
 

Hi All,

As follow up to this morning's call, please sign up to the F2F possible date here:
http://spdx.org/wiki/planning-face-face-meeting-september-october-2012 (add your name / location to the bottom of the page).

If you can host the meeting, please add your company/hosting site location to the page.

We will revisit this the week after LinuxCon NA and make a decision on location of the meeting, host, and possible way to join the mtg remotely. 

Thank you.
Ibrahim

--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation 
+1 (408) 893-1122
 


F2F in Sept/Oct - looking good - if you are not signed up, please do so

Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...>
 

Hi All,

It looks the F2F for Sept or Oct is gaining some steam with more people signing up as able to attend.

If you have not considered attending, please revisit and sign up for the dates you can.

Thank you,
Ibrahim 


updated draft: 20120822a now available.

kate.stewart@...
 

Thank you to everyone who submitted comments and bugs. :)

The bugzilla bugs with the spec itself, targetted to 1.1, are now all resolved, and written comments provided so far by email have been addressed to the best of my knowledge.

New version of the .doc and .pdf has been uploaded to
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification

Current version is:
http://www.spdx.org/system/files/spdx-1.1-rc20120822a.pdf

Please let me know if I've overlooked some comment.

Thanks, Kate


Fixes included:
- Bug 1039 - Wrong cross-reference in 4.12.2
- Bug 1043 - Inconsistency between concluded and declared licenses
- Bug 1044 - Example is wrong in 4.13 Comments on Licence
- Bug 1045 - Spelling error in Review Comments
- Marc-Etienne Vargenau, Scott Lamons, Pierre Lapointe added to thank you list
- Page 7: Section 1.7.2 correct the typo 201w -> 2012 - FIXED
- Page 8: Section 2 minor word smithing -> "that enables forward and backward compatibility for processing tools." - FIXED
- Page 9: Section 2.3.1 missing "." - FIXED
- Page 13: Section 4.1.6 -RDF/XML example value should be: glibc (not glibc 2.11.1). That is, it should be the same as the Tag example. -FIXED
- Page 14: Section 4.3.6 -RDF/XML example value should be: glibc-2.11.1.tar.gz (not glibc 2.11.1). That is, it should be the same as the Tag example. - FIXED
Page 15: Section 4.5.1 - FSF -> spell out to be Free Software Foundation -FIXED
Page 16: Section 4.7.2 - word smithing " It also permits one to embedded the SPDX file within..." - FIXED

After Marc-Etienne called my attention to the overlooked bugs, I did a wider search and:
Bug 979 - SPDX licenses are disconnected from other published versions of the license - FIXED (by section 5.4)
Bug 1016 - Publish description of structure and usage of license list
- FIXED (by License Class in RDF in Appendix II and http://www.spdx.org/content/spdx-license-list)
Bug 1018 - Proposal to add comments to all concrete classes - FIXED
(2.3, 3.3, 5.5, 6.11. 7.3 in spec)
Bug 1037 - Standard license properties are documented in RDF but not in the spec- FIXED (see class:License in Appendix II)

More info needed:
- Page 5: Section 1.3 minor word smithing - not spotting this change in the version attached to email feedback.


SPDX General Meeting this Thursday

Philip Odence
 

Two items before the meeting:

Here's the agenda for the face to face next Tuesday at LinuxCon. Note that a number of new folks have signed up so we have added an upfront overview of SPDX.

1-1:30  Introductions (Meet & Greet new participants)

1:30-2:30 SPDX Overview

2:30-3:00  SPDX 2.0 Overview (work-in-progress)

3:00-3:30  Break

3:30-5:30  SPDX Working Group

                                Mandatory field discussion (a.k.a. SPDX Lite)

                                2.0 Use Case Modeling


Anyone going to the LF Automotive Summit in the UK, Sept 19-20? We have an opportunity to speak about SPDX. Let me know. Thanks.


Meeting Time: Aug 23, 8am PST / 10 am CST / 11am EST / 15:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

Conf call dial-in:
Conference code:  7812589502
Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada):  (877) 435-0230
International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732
For those dialing in from other regions, a list of toll free numbers can be found: 
https://www.intercallonline.com/portlets/scheduling/viewNumbers/viewNumber.do?ownerNumber=6053870&audioType=RP&viewGa=false&ga=OFF

 
Administrative Agenda
Attendance
Approve Minutes- 

Technical Team Report - Kate
Attempting to approve 1.1 spec as final.

Legal Team Report - Jilayne

Business Team Report – Jack/Scott

Cross Functional Issues
Website Update
Possibility of another F2F meeting after LinuxCon


Re: SPDX 1.1 Spec - ready to remove "DRAFT" designation?

Marc-Etienne Vargenau
 

Le 22/08/2012 15:40, VARGENAU, MARC-ETIENNE (MARC-ETIENNE) a écrit :
Le 22/08/2012 15:20, kate.stewart@att.net a écrit :
In the general meeting tomorrow, would like to survey folks to see if there are any reasons left why we can't remove the "DRAFT" designation, and declare the SPEC as 1.1.

Current DRAFT is at: http://www.spdx.org/system/files/spdx-1.1-rc20120822.pdf

If anyone spots any remaining issues, there is a .doc version of the draft at
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification. Please turn on change tracking and make the requested changes, then mail me a copy and I'll incorporate and publish another draft.

Last set of changes discussed in the Technical Working group have now been made, all open bugzilla Spec 1.1 targetted bugs have been incorporated, and TM --> (R) changes have been made.

Thanks, Kate

_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Hello,

I have some blocking points.

I will send them ASAP.

Best regards,

Marc-Etienne Vargenau
Hello,

I moved some bugs present in both 1.0 and 1.1 to 1.1

Please fix them.

The total page number is wrong.

I would appreciate my name "Marc-Etienne Vargenau" be put in page 2.

Regards,

--
Marc-Etienne Vargenau
Alcatel-Lucent France, Route de Villejust, 91620 NOZAY, FRANCE
+33 (0)1 30 77 28 33, Marc-Etienne.Vargenau@alcatel-lucent.com


Re: SPDX 1.1 Spec - ready to remove "DRAFT" designation?

Marc-Etienne Vargenau
 

Le 22/08/2012 15:20, kate.stewart@att.net a écrit :
In the general meeting tomorrow, would like to survey folks to see if there are any reasons left why we can't remove the "DRAFT" designation, and declare the SPEC as 1.1.

Current DRAFT is at: http://www.spdx.org/system/files/spdx-1.1-rc20120822.pdf

If anyone spots any remaining issues, there is a .doc version of the draft at
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification. Please turn on change tracking and make the requested changes, then mail me a copy and I'll incorporate and publish another draft.

Last set of changes discussed in the Technical Working group have now been made, all open bugzilla Spec 1.1 targetted bugs have been incorporated, and TM --> (R) changes have been made.

Thanks, Kate

_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Hello,

I have some blocking points.

I will send them ASAP.

Best regards,

Marc-Etienne Vargenau

--
Marc-Etienne Vargenau
Alcatel-Lucent France, Route de Villejust, 91620 NOZAY, FRANCE
+33 (0)1 30 77 28 33, Marc-Etienne.Vargenau@alcatel-lucent.com


SPDX 1.1 Spec - ready to remove "DRAFT" designation?

kate.stewart@...
 

In the general meeting tomorrow, would like to survey folks to see if there are any reasons left why we can't remove the "DRAFT" designation, and declare the SPEC as 1.1.

Current DRAFT is at: http://www.spdx.org/system/files/spdx-1.1-rc20120822.pdf

If anyone spots any remaining issues, there is a .doc version of the draft at
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification. Please turn on change tracking and make the requested changes, then mail me a copy and I'll incorporate and publish another draft.

Last set of changes discussed in the Technical Working group have now been made, all open bugzilla Spec 1.1 targetted bugs have been incorporated, and TM --> (R) changes have been made.

Thanks, Kate


Re: Planning for SPDX F2F mtg in Sept-Oct time frame - Details in wiki

Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...>
 

Hi Everyone,

Reminder #2 on signing up for F2F dates. 

Please visit http://spdx.org/wiki/planning-face-face-meeting-september-october-2012 and let us know which proposed F2F mtgs dates you are able to attend (edit the bottom of the page and write down your name next to the dates you can make). 

This is not a promise at 100% you will be there as things can change with your plans, but it is a way to figure out which dates work for the most participants. 

Given the important of the items on the agenda, I am really hoping we can rally and get a F2F possible. I don't mind doing multiple calls to discuss these items, however, I have a strong believe that we won't progress as much or as fast as doing these discussion face to face over one or two days. 

Thanks,
Ibrahim 




On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...> wrote:
Hi Everyone,

I created a wiki page at http://spdx.org/wiki/planning-face-face-meeting-september-october-2012 that covers agenda items for F2F in the next two months, proposed dates, etc.

I think it is critical to have this F2F for various reasons explained in the link above.

It would be great if you can please find 10 minutes in your schedule to review, post feedback, sign yourself up for dates you can attend, etc. 

Thank you,
Ibrahim 

--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation 





--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation 





--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation 
+1 (408) 893-1122
 


Re: Planning for SPDX F2F mtg in Sept-Oct time frame - Details in wiki

dmg
 

While I am not in the SF area, I will be happy to host a SPDX meeting
at the University of Victoria (where I work).
in Victoria (British Columbia). It is a beautiful location, and I
could easily provide (free) rooms where we hold the discussions.
It has an international airport, with direct flights from SF and
Seattle. It has Vancouver very close by too.

--daniel

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Ibrahim Haddad
<ibrahim@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Here's the link again - there may have been an error with the URL.

http://spdx.org/wiki/planning-face-face-meeting-september-october-2012


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Ibrahim Haddad
<ibrahim@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Hi All,
Just a reminder to review and provide feedback on the agenda for the face
to face meeting (planned for oct/sept).
Also please sign your name on the dates you can attend the meeting.
Thank you,
Ibrahim


On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Ibrahim Haddad
<ibrahim@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I created a wiki page at
http://spdx.org/wiki/planning-face-face-meeting-september-october-2012 that
covers agenda items for F2F in the next two months, proposed dates, etc.

I think it is critical to have this F2F for various reasons explained in
the link above.

It would be great if you can please find 10 minutes in your schedule to
review, post feedback, sign yourself up for dates you can attend, etc.

Thank you,
Ibrahim

--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation
+1 (408) 893-1122
@IbrahimAtLinux



--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation
+1 (408) 893-1122
@IbrahimAtLinux



--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation
+1 (408) 893-1122
@IbrahimAtLinux



_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


--
--dmg

---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org


Re: Planning for SPDX F2F mtg in Sept-Oct time frame - Details in wiki

Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...>
 

Here's the link again - there may have been an error with the URL.

http://spdx.org/wiki/planning-face-face-meeting-september-october-2012


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Just a reminder to review and provide feedback on the agenda for the face to face meeting (planned for oct/sept). 
Also please sign your name on the dates you can attend the meeting.
Thank you,
Ibrahim


On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...> wrote:
Hi Everyone,

I created a wiki page at http://spdx.org/wiki/planning-face-face-meeting-september-october-2012 that covers agenda items for F2F in the next two months, proposed dates, etc.

I think it is critical to have this F2F for various reasons explained in the link above.

It would be great if you can please find 10 minutes in your schedule to review, post feedback, sign yourself up for dates you can attend, etc. 

Thank you,
Ibrahim 

--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation 





--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation 





--
Ibrahim Haddad, Ph.D.
Director, Technology & Alliances
The Linux Foundation 
+1 (408) 893-1122


701 - 720 of 1456