Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of shaposhnik@gmail.com designates
 209.85.192.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: shaposhnik@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <BY2PR03MB490316A9C5785D7126FCCB5995D0@BY2PR03MB490.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <032101d02482$6e4a83f0$4adf8bd0$@onyxconsults.com>
	<5580833F-913E-4323-87B3-533DECF770BB@oracle.com>
	<CALJK9a68WZ64Q9SHa0oY5hggi92LsajkqE=L8hps80ajYwkf7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<00cf01d025c1$0996d4a0$1cc47de0$@onyxconsults.com>
	<CALhtWkegyedc74n8mhe7mkZMnCuy=V1s9BMTv4CUu+VAfn+Yvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<00e401d025cf$078ca460$16a5ed20$@onyxconsults.com>
	<CALJK9a7XfM87O_k-a6VAnR6kB12cw0D4x+jtw4q8E0RV4mdHAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<00f201d025fb$f95dd6c0$ec198440$@onyxconsults.com>
	<CALhtWkdsyqWS5MxtbjfJw9vrh1cguCshK=t4LZR6whGAsuaeNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<010c01d02609$8b3aebc0$a1b0c340$@onyxconsults.com>
	<CA+ULb+v077Mi5ohZpH1zf1af0LzPk7mhecMOX_ruKA4A-qo8Zw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR03MB490871611AD17A0093FF173995D0@BY2PR03MB490.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CA+ULb+vsjcz=9SnHgvqDULJQZjhvLmkLTzzpuEam+cZ0CuY46A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR03MB490316A9C5785D7126FCCB5995D0@BY2PR03MB490.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 20:28:06 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+ULb+uBgxcwTn7jAq8SYfoeH2focaDPF+n0Kg=-xpz77r3gOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CCLA executed (Follow-Up)
From: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
To: "private@incubator.apache.org" <private@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>,
 Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>,
	secretary <secretary@apache.org>,
	"private@nifi.incubator.apache.org" <private@nifi.incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<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
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org