community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Incubating, Graduating & Code of conduct @ The ASF (spin-off of Better specifying....)
Date Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:08:33 GMT
I am confident, Ross, that you are equally capable of doing that. So why
don't you give it a go?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:

> So can you summarize what you are saying.
>
> Sent from Surface
>
> From: Pierre Smits<mailto:pierre.smits@gmail.com>
> Sent: ?Monday?, ?July? ?6?, ?2015 ?10?:?47? ?AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org>
>
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> No, I am not saying that, neither explicitly nor effectively. Thus no, not
> a correct representation of the point of discussion. Maybe you got that
> impression (regarding blanket bylaws, or projects going off the handle) by
> reading the postings of others.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre
>
> Op maandag 6 juli 2015 heeft Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> > Let me see if I read you right, Pierre. Effectively, you're saying that
> > imposing a blanket bylaws system should help to prevent some rare cases
> of
> > established projects going off the handle? Is this a correct
> > representation of
> > the point of this discussion?
> >
> > I am not as eloquent as you're in painting the picture of the law-less
> > land,
> > thus please accept my apologies in advance if I came to the wrong
> > conclusions.
> >
> > With best regards,
> >   Cos
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 01:34PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> > > Like expressed earlier, that loosely way of interpreting ASF guidelines
> > has
> > > led to the situation that the board charges newly established projects
> to
> > > define its bylaws. Charges that are then disregarded by the project and
> > not
> > > followed up on by the board and or the appointed VP of the project.
> > >
> > > It is such that makes the determination of 'doing the right thing,
> doing
> > it
> > > the right way' less credible in stead of more. The show flake falling
> > down
> > > at the top of the mountain creates the avalanche in the valley.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Pierre Smits
> > >
> > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> > > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > > Services and Retail & Trade
> > > http://www.orrtiz.com
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacretaz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Pierre Smits <
> pierre.smits@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > ...The latest posting by Jan proves the point of the necessity of
> > good
> > > > > per-project bylaws when it comes to deviating from the generic
> > guidelines
> > > > > of the ASF...
> > > >
> > > > But as others have said, the best is to stick to those guidelines and
> > > > use the default bylaws, unless it's absolutely necessary to do things
> > > > differently.
> > > >
> > > > -Bertrand
> > > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message