incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Accept Glasgow into Incubator - Spec Terms
Date Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:32:13 GMT
I'm sorry, but respectfully -1 this proposal as written.  My specific objection
is to the language below, I don't see anything otherwise objectionable in the
proposal.

The ASF does not recognize corporate members; all of our contributions are
measured on an individual basis and individual merit.

This proposal under the "Mechanisms for Feedback" and ultimate participation
by the appropriate parties sends us down entirely the wrong track and conveys
the wrong message for an ASF project.

I have no objection to that standards committee growing more corporate members.
But to the extent that ASF contributors offer productive growth and formative
input into the specification, the way this section is phrased is not acceptable.
If the contributor wish, and if under these terms their contributions merits
participation, that contributor should either lead the ASF's direct involvement
as the ASF spec liason (much as we've done within the JCP) or as an individual
contributor.

The specific statement "In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has shown
understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the specification,
a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can
be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working
group."

is an Oxymoron.

This section of the proposal below is entirely corporate-oriented, and that
is not what the ASF does.  If this can be addressed, my opinion of this effort
is otherwise without issues.  One alternative is to modify this as I hint at
above.  The other alternative is to determine the specific standards body first
and vote participation up or down based on the body selected.

Bill



Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
> for accepting the project for incubation.

"a.) In the same way anyone can issue a JIRA on any Apache project having signed
the Apache CLA, anyone can issue a “JIRA” to the specification working group
through the RLA (Reviewer License Agreement). This agreement provides a license
to that IP so that the specification team can incorporate it and the
specifaction as they like and the specifications can remain entirely open and
royalty free. b.) In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has shown
understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the specification,
a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can
be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working group.
On such acceptance the employer is required to sign an agreement to make sure
that employer also grants the ongoing and consistent licenses to the work as
posted in specifications.

The Reviewer License Agreement (RLA) can be viewed from the AMQP specification
page of any of the members as listed above."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message