www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ross.Gard...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: CCLA executed (Follow-Up)
Date Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:42:28 GMT
Joe,

Don’t worry about the “distraction that this has caused”, it’s not the first time
or the last time these kinds of things happen. It’s all part of the process and why you
have mentors and why the foundation has vehicles for addressing these things.

All we, at the ASF, care about is that “Nothing did prohibit their involvement and nothing
has - nor has anyone else been excluded.” So all is good from what I can see.

I have a call scheduled with Ms Williams on Tuesday 6th Jan. Assuming I don’t learn something
surprising in that call I will put an end to the escalation game and hand it right back to
the podling community and its mentors. Having said that, I doubt there will be anything left
to hand back given what I can see at present.

Ross

From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.witt@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 8:40 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: private@incubator.apache.org; Benson Margulies; secretary; private@nifi.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CCLA executed (Follow-Up)

ugh.  I replied to the wrong thread.   This day...

Ross,

Her comment there about exclusion as do many others in the thread appear to be one of a contractual
nature and do not at all involve the ASF which made further responses impossible.  Her concerns
will be brought to the attention of the appropriate officials.

I do not understand why she is asserting that anyone is being excluded from further participation
in an Apache context.  She has been told several times on this thread alone how simple it
is to join a project.

Nobody was or will be excluded from participating as per normal Apache processes.  Whether
a contract exists for her company to get paid to contribute, however, is an entirely different
matter and certainly one that would be between her company and any entity that might choose
to do so.  I have no role in contracting so however that voodoo happens is magic to me.

Nothing did prohibit their involvement and nothing has - nor has anyone else been excluded.
 Now, as she noted one of the employees has left that company.  As of yesterday that former
employee sent an e-mail to our dev mailing list indicating her interest to contribute (see
below link).  Why that didn't happen sooner is a question for the individual.  Though I think
Ted's e-mail just sent does appear to reveal the actual reason which is she was advised not
to by her employer.

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-nifi-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCALJK9a76WvFxgqqU0oZJiXe%3DFAc0%3DooJD5gcLXVnOZapq%3DALOg%40mail.gmail.com%3E

Her claims about things I may or may not have said I have chosen to avoid responding to.

I am truly sorry for the distraction that this has caused.  We just want to be a normal healthy
podling working our way to learning and demonstrating the Apache Way.  I am grateful for the
support we've received and we hope to just get back to the work of growing a community.

Thanks

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org<mailto:roman@shaposhnik.org>>
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com<mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>> wrote:
> Roman,
>
> Let me speak to her one on one. I only got involved because she was escalating in every
direction. Remember,
> as President I have no real authority in this matter but this is not something she understands
since it is unusual
> and certainly not what her own title of "President/CEO" means. As a Director I have some
authority, but I doubt
> the 8 other directors (not to mention the Membership) would take kindly to me meddling
in the VP Incubators
> business without good reason, so I will have no opinion as a Director either.
>
>
> My goal is simply to stop the escalation in its tracks while also giving her a chance
to explain precisely what her
> concern is. At the end of the call I will simply be referring it back to the right people
(most likely IPMC).

Sure. Makes sense.

> If I have you in the call then it will be a very different conversation to the one I
want to have since you are the
> one with the authority to take action here (though I hope you would defer to the mentors
and PPMC members).
> That being said, if you really feel it is necessary to join I have no objection and will
ensure you get an invite,
> just be aware of my objectives as stated above.

No I think you're right. Lets see if you meeting with here would resolve it.

> Finally, I don't think your reply below answers my question. What I'm trying to understand
> is *who* did the excluding that Ms. Williams refers to.

The question doesn't make sense, since it references a non-existent
(at the time)
entity: Apache NiFi. If we were to re-state her question in such a way that it
does make sense then if would be about exclusion of somebody from participating
in a non-ASF collaboration. From what she said so far -- there was a contract
re-negotiation and it is NOT clear which side ultimately pushed for dropping the
individual from collaboration. It must have been, of course, approved by an
officer of their company.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Mime
View raw message