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 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:20:09 GMT


William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 

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


Mime
View raw message