Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of peter.hunsberger@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.217.12 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=NY50KOZxiuItz4F9BqytzYKC++P9KJ2MmRLzX7bwJjyvWAlxK0BhKwwYg/nEdS5zrG
         4LpmPOwIdsoGm6ovDHIgQ9ng7aq+Qht0Wjd7774rc1NHR3+2sjzaSwP6H7WiWUYTTm6Z
         TDzyOseBm0+tst/EKRy9pfQNYiojI8PS4mfLU=
Message-ID: <cc159a4a0809240820s325c6e81j6b1d2faa1a70685a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:20:24 -0500
From: "Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com>
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
In-Reply-To: <48DA584E.8050806@agssa.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48D7ED61.1020109@agssa.net> <48DA584E.8050806@agssa.net>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Antonio Gallardo <agallardo@agssa.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect enough
> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
> window or worse go full closed source?
>
> I think changing the rules is not fair at all. That should rings our
> bells. Most important, our own user base will suffer. Any of our user
> now have to have in the pocket 16k yearly in order to deploy a cocoon
> 2.2 based application. That does not sounds good at all.
>
> There are many ways to describe the spirit of the apache community, but
> there is one that I like more than all the others: 'we care about people
> more than we care about code'. We have to do something.
>

I'm not convinced that anything needs to be done at the moment.  I
don't like what they've done but I also don't think they are stupid,
they are not going to piss off their entire user base.  I'd suggest we
simply continue to watch what happens for  the next three months (at
least) before we conclude that any action is necessary.  If at that
point we see real problems it won't be "too late", we should still
have a stable base that can continue to work for another 6 months or
so.

At this point maybe the best thing to do is scope out possible
directions to head if this does indeed turn out to be an issue?

-- 
Peter Hunsberger