Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 14306 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2011 20:14:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2011 20:14:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 13651 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2011 20:14:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 13284 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2011 20:14:47 -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 13277 invoked by uid 99); 4 Feb 2011 20:14:47 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:14:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.178] (HELO mail-iy0-f178.google.com) (209.85.210.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:14:39 +0000 Received: by iym1 with SMTP id 1so2102212iym.23 for ; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:14:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=35nUmXfx1crm2j4+Jmjo1iyJASzdEpwzTpxzineUiwA=; b=GsMGfumvT/hlZB2RHLtLVGJWpSH90PEkDt6u++vPkGyU6LQsKn+48zowLHSn/WaSNz mQTXugk5WtkvLWmb6pdFwO/7FACP3uejav/hR50gxkXlNBJVizeckU6jY4gbBkGzxV3R lRFmGK5faODUwt6X7JM9OPzhA1HVSiYHm1eU0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=jIoDUFXAF4Glme3klRXrdwrJAXl32hDWL9UMWeLcITFy294t9UfSo/Wqq8oEm8fPnN o8pUXmLGN1N2REaSoHLy1GhI3bmVKCHFeyAUFwEQPPhXQrYLFwnBu1OHq1Gv6o4Pd+Y4 PfbyWlvK/jbg8fAUqUBVwVyvfA6gQqM0qDOXs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.169.72 with SMTP id a8mr590328icz.242.1296850458894; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:14:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.229.201 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:14:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4D4C2FEA.2020605@osunix.org> <4D4C4635.1070903@apache.org> <4D4C4852.6060304@osunix.org> <20110204194614.GA5167@rectangular.com> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:14:18 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Apache project moving externally From: Benson Margulies To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Here's a guess as to why the discussion is about exit, and I'd appreciate it if the originator of this thread would confirm or disconfirm. You can't have a viable Apache TLP with out Contributors=N, N>3. If the code is relatively stable, and the contributor base is really small, the enthusiasm isn't enough. Is this the general lay of the land? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org