Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of fil@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.187 as permitted sender)
From: Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
To: "callback-dev@incubator.apache.org" <callback-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:18:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Your coding practices and documentation are not done well.
Thread-Topic: Your coding practices and documentation are not done well.
Thread-Index: AczUeyzvo8mbeGXcT9uyXmbn/QVFQw==
Message-ID: <CB39A44A.32BA%fil@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMYu0LsvJ6OHQX1KpetvH134bG38u4QmJeaHwRgOmPo=ApO+2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


>Fil,
>
>Would you explain why fair governance and project neutrality depends upon
>Apache infrastructure?

Fair governance and neutrality don't rely on any specific infrastructure
(be it Apache or GitHub), rather, the entity that owns the code in the
first place, and the processes that are followed by everyone to
collaborate on a project decide that. Apache is a not-for-profit
foundation that owns the code, not a company that invests in the project
(like Adobe or IBM). Before the move to Apache, the PhoneGap project
relied on the "goodwill" of Nitobi and IBM in keeping the project open and
governed fairly. I remember where decisions on the future of the project
would be made by Nitobi folk, just because Nitobi as a company had to move
quickly or react to client needs, for example. It didn't affect the
project in a negative way, but I certainly wouldn't consider that
governance approach to be fair. Now in Apache there are a set of processes
and rules in place to guarantee that decisions affecting the project are
made in the open and are made on a consensus basis.

>I would have thought that popular, easily understood
>infrastructure like github provides the accessibility and transparency
>that
>fosters good governance. On the flip side, increasing learning curves and
>raising barriers would cause an increasing gap between governors and
>aspiring participants.
>
>Sorry if I'm reopening a can of worms. I'm ok if this is a topic you don't
>want to address again. I've been through the process of being bought by a
>big company.

Trust me, I would much prefer to work solely within GitHub's system, if
only for the ease of use :). Perhaps we can try to convince Apache +
GitHub to work more closely together to get the superior community
features of GitHub as a collaboration tool (not to mention the amount of
work they put into the product in general) approved into Apache's
processes. One can dream!