Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 57550 invoked from network); 10 May 2009 02:30:42 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 May 2009 02:30:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 82105 invoked by uid 500); 10 May 2009 02:30:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 81843 invoked by uid 500); 10 May 2009 02:30:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 81835 invoked by uid 99); 10 May 2009 02:30:41 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 May 2009 02:30:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.4 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 72.14.220.152 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of brianf@infinity.nu) Received: from [72.14.220.152] (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.152) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 May 2009 02:30:31 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so709277fga.6 for ; Sat, 09 May 2009 19:30:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.86.92.15 with SMTP id p15mr2438738fgb.48.1241922609061; Sat, 09 May 2009 19:30:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <49F71CCF.4030204@infinity.nu> <9707508E-30B3-4814-A475-137414B2D285@yahoo.com> <7F6760A85D49434D87E4A43D1321CEF5@LROSENTOSHIBA> <2d12b2f00905090145j70dee1b5x6762de10f07be322@mail.gmail.com> <82D1158220DB41F192FEF12DC8548C1D@LROSENTOSHIBA> From: Brian Fox Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 22:29:49 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Clarification on the release requirements To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd25528f3a008046985a36f X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd25528f3a008046985a36f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Brett Porter 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 motion. > > - Brett > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org > > --000e0cd25528f3a008046985a36f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Brett Po= rter <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 whateve= r was decided. Unfortunately, the thread got hijacked to a non-publically a= rchived 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 dec= idedly non-constructive thread, in the place documented on the site current= ly as the place to discuss it. I told everyone where I was posting it. I th= ought it was publicly archived, I was wrong, but I'm sure we can fix th= at.

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

Based on the participation here, we got more varied inp= ut 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 sugges= tions which may or may not be included (or wiped away with whole new patche= s) and then the documents are simply changed. If you're a member and ha= ve access to those archives, I suggest you take a read for yourself, perhap= s 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 ov= er 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 c= hange that everyone seemed to agree on. If I missed it, can you please poin= t to the message ID where you pointed out that discrepancy?

I pointed it out several times on _this_ thread, that t= he docs and current practice didn't jive with what Roy said. This was n= ever resolved here and I didn't see any point in bringing it up again o= nce the other train was in motion.
=A0

- Brett


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


--000e0cd25528f3a008046985a36f--