incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Hirsch <hirsch.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Date Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:16:39 GMT
Vote results after 3+ days:

ESME PPMC +1: 6
IMPC +1: 3
IMPC -1: 1

There has been further discussion / clairification on this issue on
the legal-discuss mailing list since this vote was initiated.  In
particular, the post from William A. Rowe Jr. on Jan 13 and from Henri
Yandell yesterday. I'm unsure whether the suggestions in these two
posts have an impact on the changes that we are considering.

In particular the suggestion of

/*
 * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
 */

rather than

 "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"

which was the basis for this vote.

D.


On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- 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.
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message