Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=GytsNMGudGiuuJI/utQhThDcQL/X7b4HimCLkaYFr5NgLyjpwhIe5A4HF8hVALAanVzrPJM18+0zZtcbBKXKW2AEwqpCqdCkY/k55gwOHq3v7sak29feaOcZTNNTxR2nt1Wun0q3z6SmgbcqjOkYQrvtjTE/W9C0/6DcEbdqXEs=;
Message-ID: <631364.15502.qm@web54410.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <fa2d9f451001120504j6ee62f2cm7f0857d8433597a5@mail.gmail.com>
  <437450.60316.qm@web54410.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
  <3d89f1771001121335u72544197j5249ea6671e5c074@mail.gmail.com>
  <461642.13486.qm@web54409.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
  <3d89f1771001121354u56cde8ccvd92121fd1e4f911c@mail.gmail.com>
  <284871.56180.qm@web54401.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
  <3d89f1771001121547i2c88e084rc87dc84d7f4305f2@mail.gmail.com>
  <68f4a0e81001121637g7c306beblbee4590af4c84ca@mail.gmail.com>
  <9d8b82ea1001121722g43dda1a4g9f440c42b7d2c0b8@mail.gmail.com>
  <161320.76332.qm@web54409.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <9d8b82ea1001121940o168db2cckec15206305a4ed02@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:57:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <9d8b82ea1001121940o168db2cckec15206305a4ed02@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

----- Original Message ----

> From: Erik Engbrecht <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:40:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)

[... snip stuff I've addressed separately ...]

> There is no question that many of David's principles are the anathema of
> ASF's principles.  That has been clear for a shockingly long time.  But my
> understanding is that legally there is no dispute.  If the community is
> going to put ASF principles aside in order to keep the code, then it should
> just do it.  Weaving principles into the discussion just introduces
> ambiguity, prevents closure, and ultimately hampers the a developing
> community's growth.  This, I believe is what the leaders of the ESME
> community just voted to do.
> 
> Or the community can bite the bullet, stand by ASF principles even though it
> appears to be legally unnecessary, and yank David's code.

Looking over the original ESME proposal, one of the core reasons it was
proffered to the ASF was to take advantage of the ASF's community-building
experience.  A good part of how we build communities here is to establish
core values that most Apache projects share, and that people outside of the
committer community can easily recognize and elect to be a part of.

Amongst those values is the notion of equitable and fair treatment of all
contributors to a project, be they PMC members, committers, or more outside
participants.  To be sure, meritocratic governance involves certain people
expressing greater and lesser control over areas of the project where overall
proficiency is mixed.  But in the end people express themselves on open forums,
largely using their vote, where *anyone* can constructively criticise their words,
and where noone is barred from participation other than those who act to poison
the commmunity.  (I don't mean to suggest David is in the latter category here.)

"Putting ASF principles aside" to me implies this community still has a
number of lessons to learn about building an open ASF-style community.
I personally don't view the current VOTE in that light- I think people
are trying to do what is best, at least in the short term, for the project.
Balancing the long-term interests of the project (and the org) is a more
challenging question, and I see Gianugo's concerns here more along those lines.
Trying to rationally address all relevant concerns is another important aspect
of Apache-style decision making, but I think we've talked long enough on this
VOTE thread.