Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=r1pgzYy10IIYJQVSYqDJe3uOfPdBlZV/WITVH8+/3A+PXFErbLpLIJuonWOLXpy3nk
         F0mbd1FBwxXbZ532plhrgn9+RglKFB5e2D+29hcZ8UrzXVyRe5mAXS6FlfisdNMFCzTb
         mvD0eIvcIY76DFA0SAreSbECtzFnfoaXhCFm4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DD66E14.8090709@shanecurcuru.org>
References: <4DD66E14.8090709@shanecurcuru.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 10:02:55 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTin3Q2NyrK4vA8=t5VOsWbAPWuP61w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Apache project guidelines docs += independence?
From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
To: dev@community.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote=
:
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> There are some minor English language issues, like agreement in
>> number. Sean, do you want edits?

or, dear, s/sean/shane/. Naughty Iphone!

>
> I'm not sure if Sean wants edits, since I don't know which Sean you mean.
> [1]
>
> But I'm happy if people want to copy or adapt this blog posting to use on
> any apache.org website, preferably under /dev or on the community site.
>
> I think it could definitely use some cleanup, and it especially could use
> some expanded explanations, both of the reasons for this rule, and for so=
me
> of the specific ways that PMCs need to act or be seen to act.
>
> In a perfect world, we'd actually have a series of essays. =C2=A0Somethin=
g like
> my posting as the header on the /dev site as official documentation. =C2=
=A0Then
> get several people to write personal blog posts about the same topic, giv=
ing
> their perspective on what this means. Especially for a concept like
> "independence", I find it really helps to have several different people
> explain it in their own words - along with whatever official policy we po=
st
> on apache.org somewhere.
>
> - Shane
>
> [1] Sorry to point out the obvious and presumably unintentional typo, but
> that's a name that I do not respond to. =C2=A08-P
>
>>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> +! reads well and clarifies some useful points we often take for
>>> granted.
>>>
>>> Upayavira
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2011 12:58 -0400, "Michael McCandless"
>>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 this is an important topic and you explain it well.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure where it should go but I agree it should be somewhere
>>>> "permanent" and visible.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > A number of different issues recently about commercial influence in
>>>> > our
>>>> > projects have had me thinking about the importance that Apache
>>>> > projects
>>>> > are managed independently. =C3=82 Since this isn't explicitly stated=
 in the
>>>> > obvious places, I wrote a little essay for my personal blog:
>>>> >
>>>> > http://communityovercode.com/2011/05/apache-projects-are-independent=
/
>>>> >
>>>> > Comments? =C3=82 I think as the ASF grows up, and as some of our pro=
jects
>>>> > are
>>>> > on the way to scoring mega stardom, it's important to ensure both th=
at
>>>> > our projects can continue to manage themselves independently, but al=
so
>>>> > to *explain* to the world that this is important to us, and why.
>>>> >
>>>> > Do people like this? =C3=82 Where would be a good place to put it in=
 /dev
>>>> > or
>>>> > the community site as a requirement for Apache projects? =C3=82 I th=
ink
>>>> > it's
>>>> > clear that the board (past, present, and future) will expect project=
s
>>>> > to
>>>> > be managed independently, but it's not clear that we've done a good
>>>> > enough job of explaining this yet.
>>>> >
>>>> > - Shane
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>