On 02 Jun 2011, at 4:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Graham, I am not, I repeat, not discussing your *contribution* to
the ASF.
I respect the many, many things you have added, and aspects you
improved,
and bugs you have fixed, which includes your patches to ldap.
I have asked repeatedly for you to provide feedback on the apr_crypto
APIs and to properly articulate your long standing objection, and you
left both myself and the project waiting ages before you finally did
so. I assumed the reason for this was that you were just busy. When
you finally did provide feedback it turned out you had completely
missed that fact that the a key part of your objection had been fixed
on trunk 12 months earlier. I assumed your email was broken, or you
had just missed that earlier patch to trunk, perhaps again because you
were too busy, or perhaps it was a simple mistake.
In contrast, you didn't show me the courtesy of asking me for feedback
on the state of apr_ldap code, to clarify whether there were any
blockers, or whether there was anything you could do to speed things
along. Instead you assumed I "couldn't be bothered" and declared as
much on a public mailing list, after taking matters into your own
hands ripping out the old code. In doing so, and despite your denial
above, you have made your feelings on my contribution to the ASF quite
clear.
I am a member of the APR PMC, and a long standing member of the
foundation, and this is because I care about the APR project, I care
about other projects at the ASF, I care about the foundation, and I
care about the end users and vendors who use our software. For this
reason, I will continue the work on apr_crypto, followed by the work
on apr_dbd, followed by apr_ldap, as agreed by this project in the
past, until the agreed work is complete, no matter how unpleasant the
task turns out to be. I however respectfully ask that you make this
task no more unpleasant for me than it needs to be.
Regards,
Graham
--
