cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
Date Sat, 19 Mar 2016 14:59:34 GMT
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation Sam, I have to ask for your patience with me as
> there is one remark in there that leaves me confused; Don't feel obligated
> to answer in length but please confirm or negate my suspicion
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> ...
>
>
>> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the
>> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again.
>>
>> I don't see any action taken by the cloudstack team that couldn't have
> been initiated by a complete outsider. I am assuming you mean the fork to
> the cloudstack organisation. This organisation was created by Mark, I think
> and was taken control of by our VP as a precaution to keep others from
> making or using it, so I would think the board would applaud this instead
> of giving us a (kind of) reprimand. So again and in order for us to not
> make such a mistake again...
>
> Can you please explain?
>
> I am pushing this because there is clearly irritation on the side of the
> board with the PMCs behaviour and vice versa and I feel, probably like you,
> this is not largely but completely due to lack of communication and
> transparency. Of course I might be as dumb as I feel and this might not be
> the action you refer to at all.

I see you posted a later email identifying one of the points of
confusion while I was composing this reply.  Cool.  Meanwhile:

I'm on the board, I'm not irritated.  At least not at CloudStack.  :-)

The initial action (creating the fork) was not clearly done by the PMC
as a whole, that is now being rectified by a retroactive vote being
taken.  Even that I wouldn't suggest be done any differently: many
parts of the ASF prefer a Commit then Review (CTR).  Under normal
circumstances, a vote would not be necessary.

> --
> Daan

- Sam Ruby

Mime
View raw message