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 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPFNckiTcN=whQq7OqHHfYtj0c_99U1o8GjVV6MJayLRd0QxWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DD9692BD-1E27-45A8-8E80-6E42B6DA779E@jpl.nasa.gov>
	<CAM1yOjZHayPvdS=624xdKej3YMBXphTJCAFsVFNjUWNye0quZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<15F56445-F5E3-4EBB-BAE4-71A7B973F294@jpl.nasa.gov>
	<CAKQbXgBj-txS6mpVMHvT7oF2PsS8gXNdDYDDmK_1odbdmJfpEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<983E76DE-3218-482D-B978-C1BD72A212B1@jpl.nasa.gov>
	<CAGU5spfo5zqk7wWwBcKy5pOisM39vHY4OhaqG1KnF6ARYCOb-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1325190214.13347.YahooMailNeo@web27804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<0F2CB17A-FB5D-4BBE-9789-A115D12C60F2@jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1325191807.5131.YahooMailNeo@web27807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<CAKQbXgA-oOMGfQK-S7vdxT+ZpTA0aR2-mjKzWKFiwkXugZx21g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGU5speYqVfFncBc4ZsjmarDuOSidwgXc1q=MJymNt4H1SKTgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKQbXgDyqnYfqdtCjvpfrRXpvouW4e0LGtvFYBvZOhTaujweCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPFNckiTcN=whQq7OqHHfYtj0c_99U1o8GjVV6MJayLRd0QxWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:52:35 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CALhtWkcXXNeohKSe7tDjLP14vpJsjt+pe7iBRiPjG9PjoKPDUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Apache Extras Question
From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
To: dev@community.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

There are two aspects of this situation that I want to highlight:

First, there's a policy tension at the heart of the whole Apache
Extras concept that has me puzzled.

I could point to a raft of messages from board members expressing
extremely vehement views in opposition to 'circumventing license
restrictions via github.' The idea that a PMC might take active steps
to put code elsewhere to address license restrictions was, at least in
the rhetorical moments in question, anathema. Having read that email,
if I were a PMC chair, I wouldn't what's proposed here without an
explicit board approval. The implicit policy on 'extras' seemed to be
that it was a place for outsiders to park code that, for whatever
reason, wasn't contributable -- NOT a place for PMCs to park code that
couldn't live in Apache source control.

Second, I wonder about the proposed governance and logic of this whole
'java package id rules' business. Here's a scenario: someone from
outside Apache fills out the form, creates a project, and *forks some
Apache project into it.* Bingo, 'org.apache.*'. What group of
volunteers is signed up to notice and police this? For that matter,
are we quite sure that the policy is a good idea? Package IDs in java
tend to be sticky, to avoid pointless incompatibility. How can we say
to people, 'The Apache license says that you can do whatever you want
with this code -- except fork it at our affiliated site?'
org.apache.oodt is not a trademark, at least, I sure hope it isn't. If
we're going to try to control it on apacheextras, don't we need to go
bugging every fork of every project on github?