www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu>
Subject Re: Clarification on the release requirements
Date Sun, 10 May 2009 02:29:49 GMT
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrote:

> On 10/05/2009, at 1:14 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>  I originally had hopes that we could drive this to some consensus and
>> carve it and begin the process of bringing projects into compliance with
>> whatever was decided. Unfortunately, the thread got hijacked to a
>> non-publically archived list (site-dev) where there apparently is no voting.
> I don't think that's a fair characterization. I had no intention of
> hijacking the thread, I was trying to do something constructive with a
> decidedly non-constructive thread, in the place documented on the site
> currently as the place to discuss it. I told everyone where I was posting
> it. I thought it was publicly archived, I was wrong, but I'm sure we can fix
> that.

It had the effect of killing the discussion that I don't think was
completely non-constructive. There were some detours but it seemed like we
might have been getting somewhere. In hindsight, perhaps this isn't the
right list. However at the time, I assumed the release requirements derived
from legal requirements...and I was following up on the previous thread in
this list.

Based on the participation here, we got more varied input than what we saw
on the other list. I also think that the site-dev list might be appropriate
for wordsmithing some parts of dev related docs, but I don't believe that
foundation wide policy decisions should be made in the same fashion as
documenting things like how to use svn.

>  People just make patches and the few people watching that list offer
>> suggestions which may or may not be included (or wiped away with whole new
>> patches) and then the documents are simply changed. If you're a member and
>> have access to those archives, I suggest you take a read for yourself,
>> perhaps it will be eye-opening for you as it was for me.
>> The current changes that resulted from this didn't really go too far over
>> what was there and have the unfortunate side effect that there is still some
>> discrepancy in the oral tradition and what everyone does, meaning this will
>> come back eventually.
> Everything I saw was folks arguing about who had the right to decide on a
> change that everyone seemed to agree on. If I missed it, can you please
> point to the message ID where you pointed out that discrepancy?

I pointed it out several times on _this_ thread, that the docs and current
practice didn't jive with what Roy said. This was never resolved here and I
didn't see any point in bringing it up again once the other train was in

> - Brett
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message