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 lrosen@rosenlaw.com designates
 69.89.20.226 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
To: <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Cc: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
References: <111c01d0a0b9$5df9cbb0$19ed6310$@rosenlaw.com>
 <55739ACF.5020708@rcbowen.com>
In-Reply-To: <55739ACF.5020708@rcbowen.com>
Subject: RE: Impasses and decision-making
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 12:53:07 -0700
Message-ID: <128301d0a15b$959cee10$c0d6ca30$@rosenlaw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQJKlwDIXePj63C885N9xBqTpOcEZgGTlABjnKDkFgA=
Content-Language: en-us

Colleagues and friends,

After receiving two on-list responses from ASF board members (Rich =
Bowen, Greg Stein) and one from our president (Ross Gardler), I feel =
obliged to differ. All three said "we are a do-ocracy" and they told me =
to do what I want by myself and to stop bothering them with proposed =
policy changes. This is ludicrous.

Actually we are a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation governed by our own =
Bylaws and by the laws of Delaware and the United States. We should =
groan loudly when officers of ASF declare we are not a democracy. =
Someone besides me should object when a board member says to take my =
issues to a private Apache list where I am temporarily banned by the =
board from even posting and where the few board participants there =
already disagree with me. I've been trying that for several years now =
and it has accomplished nothing but my being banned under the so-called =
CoC because the Peter Pan crew here wants to have fun.

I've been an open source lawyer since before ASF was even incorporated. =
It saddens me to see this important institution refuse to consider =
changing itself to conform to the laws and FOSS licenses of today. =
Fortunately, ASF is a democracy and it elects its board and officers =
every year. There is hope.

There is also great FOSS software here. Please stay with us while we try =
to evolve!

/Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Bowen [mailto:rbowen@rcbowen.com]=20
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 6:14 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Impasses and decision-making

On 06/06/2015 08:31 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Rich Bowen wrote:
>>Ah. Then clearly we are at an impasse. "I think someone should" is=20
>>quite
> simply not how things happen here. If you feel that this is crazier=20
> than normal, perhaps you've missed something. That is the definition=20
> of normal. We are, as I said, a do-ocracy.
>
> Perhaps we are at an impasse. Seems much like that to me too some =
days.
>
> I vaguely remember that you **require** each Apache project to submit=20
> a quarterly report that almost nobody reads and that usually says the=20
> same thing each report. Would you like me to write those also?

Here we go again.

No, Larry, nobody is suggesting that you write reports for projects.=20
We're suggesting that you do the thing that you claim that only you are =
qualified to do.

I have no idea what patents the httpd server might be using, nor do I =
know how to find out, nor do I particularly care. You seem to care. Do =
something about it. Or not. Whatever.

I do know what RFCs we implement, and we have documented those. In the =
documentation. Not in a file with a whimsical name, but actually in the =
docs. It's here:=20
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/misc/relevant_standards.html


> Incubator and infrastructure committees are **required** to report=20
> monthly. Want me to write those and save everyone the bother?
>
> I really hate it when board members pretend that The Apache Software=20
> Foundation is free for every Peter Pan to have fun in. I thought our=20
> corporate role was to provide professional support =E2=80=93 including =
legally=20
> strong policies =E2=80=93 for open source projects. And then let THEM =
do it=20
> themselves.
>

You are saying that "someone should", while also saying "nobody is =
qualified to do this". Surely that means that you're the only one that =
can do it. So do it. Or don't do it. But continuing to say, again and =
again, that someone should, doesn't seem terribly productive.

You are, of course, at complete liberty to dismiss and mock the way that =
Open Source happens, but it happens when people make it happen, not when =
people say "someone should."

I'm not speaking as the board. I'm speaking as a PMC member of a couple =
of projects. If you think that we're misusing patents (or whatever =
terminology you lawyer types like to use) then submit a docs patch. If =
you want me to call you Peter Pan, I'd be glad to, but I fail to see =
what that would accomplish.

Yes, Peter, here at Apache people scratch their itches, and we enable =
random members of the public to come in and scratch their itches. People =
who say "someone should" are assumed to be volunteering. If this is =
something that itches you, scratch it. Or don't. But please stop =
insisting that "someone should."

--=20
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

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


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