> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Removing an author tag without the consent of the
> author is not cool.
>
> The important thing is that it is done *with* the
> author's consent.
I am a bit divided on the issue. On one hand I think
that once you've donated code to the ASF, you lose control
of it, and if you don't like that then you shouldn't donate
it. On the other hand, this is consensus-based development,
and if there isn't consensus on removing the @author tags,
we shouldn't.
So, I can accept that the @author tags are left in because
there isn't consensus to remove them, but I don't consider
them worthy of any special protection.
-oOo-
What I strongly *do* oppose, Berin, is your choice of words,
in particular the use of the word "defend" to describe the
situation when there is disagreement on what should be done
with some piece of code. I know you don't mean it, but I get
the image of a war zone where enemy forces launch assault
upon assault on the code. The point here is that you "defend"
something against an aggressor, an *enemy*. By saying that
Peter D. defends the code, or that someone is defending the
code on behalf of Peter D., you implicitly brand the other
side in the argument as an *enemy*.
It is a colorful description, but the images it evokes,
especially given the background of this thread and the
strong emotions there, make me wish you had used other
words. As you said, actions that would be fine in a healthy
community should perhaps not be attempted here -- yet.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
