httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: incorporating? (was: Copyright & donating code)
Date Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:30:11 GMT wrote:
> Jim...
> Thanks for your good, thoughtful response.
> I DO appreciate it. I know how busy you all are...
> But I do have some other comments...

Seek and ye shall find... I hope! :)

> You are right. I didn't mean 'wearing suits and ties'. I just meant that any
> kind of induction of a corporate structure introduces a new level of 
> accountability ( and responsibility? ) into an environment that has
> never had it before... and weird things can happen. Nice to hear that
> you are all aware of that and might guard against it.

It _is_ something that we are taking VERY seriously, and also one reason
why it's taken us soooo long :)

It's almost like someone taking up martial arts for fitness. Some people
will think that they're doing it so they can kick somebody's butt.
We're doing it for the fitness :)

> >  I would think that, yes, there are a number who use it because it's
> >  free. I would further suggest that that number is very, very small
> >  compared to those who use it because it's better than anything else.
> I guess I'm just jaded. I've been using Apache a LONG TIME and
> I guess it makes a better first impression now than it did some
> years ago. Users judge it in relation to how 'cool' their websites
> look. I judge it based on the number of open PR's. Most people
> don't look under the hood.

Yeah... But just looking at the number of open PRs really isn't far,
because there's nothing to compare it to. The range of PRs go from
obvious "user errors" to "bonafide Apache coding bugs" so the total
number is misleading. Of course, we'd like it to be 0. The other
factor is that because we _are_ Open Source, and that includes the
bug database, our "dirty laundry" is available for all to see. The reason,
of course, is that it allows someone to look thru the database, see a
bug and possibly provide a patch ("someone" means a non-AG member, ie.
anyone :) ). Also, I doubt if you'll find anyway a complete list of
all outstanding bugs or errors with Netscape, IIS, etc... ;)

> >  
> >  All the people who are in AG are saying it won't change. It's only
> >  one or two people, not associated with Apache (and seemingly very
> >  ignorant of how AG works) who says "It's changing! The sky is falling."
> I don't think ALL AG members are saying it won't change... just the
> ones who have bothered to respond. Roy Fielding himself said most
> of what's going on is taking place 'in private' and I don't think ALL AG
> members are even aware of what's happening. By 'all' do you mean
> 'only those members who really matter'?

Everyone who is in AG, knows what's going on. There is a separate
"AG-only" mailing list that is used for things like this, as is
used for all other Open Source projects. Some members of "AG" just
don't want to bother responding, and that's cool (because it's
100% volunteer, if someone wishes to use their time coding instead
of responding to issues that others are, then it's a good use of
limited resources). The key detail with this whole thing is ensuring
that nothing changes.

All AG members matter. It's the way we operate.

> I guess it's time people realized there is a great distinction between
> 'contributors' and 'members'. If you are not on the 'private mail list'
> that's discussing the 'business' side of things I guess you are not
> a 'member'... just a 'contributor'. Yes/No?

There is a "core" team of developers, and these are noted on the Apache
web site. In a nutshell, it's those who have done enough work and
effort on Apache that they have CVS access and are invited in as
members of AG.
> NPO means 'Non-Profit Organization', Yes?


> But you know people... the minute they realize there's going to be
> money flowing in they want to know where it's going and who's in
> charge of the money. Human nature.

well, I'm certainly not anticipating money "flowing" in. It's certainly
not the intention or reason for incorporating.

> Look... I know you guys work your asses off and you put out a good product...
> but C'mon... MANY AG members get a LOT out of their 'association' with
> Apache. Looks great on a Resume' and can lead to VERY high paying
> jobs. Don't be naive. Half the college whipper-snappers who come here just
> want to be able to say they are 'part of the group' to notch up their job
> potential when Daddy cuts the cord and they have to join the real world.

Agreed. Members of AG do get something/a-lot out of their association
with Apache. But not from Apache. 

> You make it sound like you guys hang drywall in the day and work on Apache
> at night. Take a poll. Most active supporting members income is in some
> way directly related to Apache. Yes/No?

How would you define "directly?" If someone makes a buck by being an
Apache consultant, then they are making their money because of their
knowledge and experience which is further enhanced by their association
with Apache. But again, they get nothing directly from Apache. The fact
is they _could_ be hanging drywall. As far as how Apache is produced and
how AG operates it makes no difference.

I think you'll find a general rule that members of AG do not thump their
chests at every opportunity to say "Look at me! I'm a member of AG!"
We take pains that Apache stays a _group_ effort and any member trying
to "hog the limelight" is asked to tone it down. You'll notice that
the Apache site does not have web banners or things like that. You'll notice
that it's only on the contributor's page where other "companies" are
even listed, and even then it's toned down. And it's just for this reason,
that there is a concern that Apache will be taken as a "front" for it's
members to promote themselves. That's simply not the way it is.

   Jim Jagielski   |||   |||
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

View raw message