Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 41444 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2006 19:21:27 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Aug 2006 19:21:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 30031 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2006 19:21:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 29933 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2006 19:21:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 29922 invoked by uid 99); 7 Aug 2006 19:21:25 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:21:25 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [207.155.248.122] (HELO conqueror.cnchost.com) (207.155.248.122) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:21:24 -0700 Received: from [10.0.1.80] (unknown [69.225.174.130]) (as wrowe@rowe-clan.net) by conqueror.cnchost.com (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id 1574C61BC for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44D79269.9010207@rowe-clan.net> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:20:09 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Accept Glasgow into Incubator - Spec Terms References: <44D26B5D.2090203@rowe-clan.net> In-Reply-To: <44D26B5D.2090203@rowe-clan.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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