incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Remediation ...
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:00:22 GMT
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)

On 9 Jun 2011, at 17:27, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com> wrote:

>        Can you comment on your plans, and/or can others comment on ASF
> policies in this regard ? how are such issues worked through ?

I can't comment on the details if Robs remediation comments, but I can confirm the ASF does
not allow the kind of code blocking you seem to be predicting. Given that Rob is already an
Apache committer you can be certain he already knows this. 

 "To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied by a technical justification
showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance,
etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight." 

http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Ross

> 
>>  I think we'll all be in a stronger position, IP-wise, once (and 
>> if) we can all get working from the same repository.
> 
>        My hope would be of good public disclosure following Tridge's
> pattern that also allows substantial clarity around the issues, and
> thus does not require blindly working from the same repository: and
> indeed is a benefit to all free software office suite hackers.
> 
>        Furthermore - another key issue of the LKML approach is that the
> functionality is still present, but compile-time disabled. That seems to
> me to have a number of positive virtues:
> 
>        * As a European, I rather resent the ethnocentric imperialism
>          implied by trying to export the (terminally broken) US patent
>          system, and I resent the idea of permanently depriving the
>          whole world of good software primarily to make Americans
>          happy (until expiration)
>                + separation can help avoid this general problem,
> 
>        * removal of features without a clear explanation is a recipe
>          for people to jump in and fix eg. the FAT file-system issue
>          they have, while being unaware of the mine-field they
>          tap-dance into thus wasting time & destroying motivation
>                + much better to have the feature present but separated
>                  in some clean way.
> 
>        So - in summary, what is really being suggested here ? and how
> does it fit into the ASF way ?
> 
>        Thanks,
> 
>                Michael.
> 
> -- 
> michael.meeks@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message