I didn't intend to say *all* rules are unnecessary. I said we have very few necessary rules.
I didn't intend to say policy *is* rule, I said it is interpreted as rule. Ross Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -----Original Message----- From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 9:50 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache Way talks On 16 February 2015 at 16:51, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > I think that's exactly it. If we write policy down it becomes a rule. Huh? Written policy only becomes a rule if the document declares it as such - or perhaps, fails to declare it as policy. There seem to be a lot of unwritten rules and unwritten policy in the ASF. I think this is why there are so many arguments about what is absolutely required and what is best practice. Also that some rules are stated without providing the rationale. > Rules work great when every environment is the same, but that's not the real > world. That suggests that rules are completely unnecessary. I don't believe that is the case. It ought to be possible to start from a strict requirement - for example, being able to establish provenance of code - and derive some fundamental rules from that. If a rule is stated without any background, it just becomes something to argue over, and edge cases are more difficult to resolve. Whereas if the rationale for a rule is documented, edge cases can be checked against the rationale. > We do, as a group of individuals, have the tendency to assume the way things > are done in project Foo is the entirety of The Apache Way. In fact what is > done in Foo is a superset of the Apache Way, designed for that specific > project. > > Consider Committer = PMC for example. The Apache Way only says that both > groups should be merit based (I.e. no cabals or BD). It says nothing about > what the merit levels are or whether they should be the same or different for > each group. Yet, somehow, many people will express their experience as being > an immutable part of the Apache Way. > > Individual experience should help inform other community members, but it > shouldn't restrict them. > > Ross > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ > From: jan i<mailto:j...@apache.org> > Sent: 2/16/2015 8:43 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Apache Way talks > > s > > On 16 February 2015 at 17:21, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < > ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> I agree Joe, >> >> We only have a very few immutable rules. Everything else is policy. >> As long as policy don't break those immutable rules the they can >> shift and change as much as they need to in order to empower >> individual project communities. >> >> Coincidentally I wrote a presentation on this very topic last night. >> I'll look to share it once it has been delivered, but too late for me >> to add to the CFP. >> > I agree with you both.....only being a relative new member, it is > often quite hard to see what is official policy and what is just the > opinion of some members. > > The rules are clear, and in my opinion, protect our values. > > Maybe we are back in another old discussion, that some of our policies > are not defined, but merely "we use to do". > > rgds > jan I. > > >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> ________________________________ >> From: Joe Brockmeier<mailto:j...@zonker.net> >> Sent: 2/16/2015 8:01 AM >> To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: Apache Way talks >> >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015, at 01:38 PM, jan i wrote: >> > I have a feeling that we are standing at a crossroad where many >> > questions like Directd funding, ApacheCON, entry ticket to ASF >> (Incubator/pTLP) >> > tear us apart, and I believe it is high time the members of ASF >> > take a >> stand >> > (whatever it may be), and show we are ONE united in the APACHE WAY. >> >> I'm not sure directed funding, handling ApacheCon, etc. are immutable >> or define The Apache Way. >> >> We can allow (or not) directed funding and still practice community >> over code, merit, openness, etc. >> >> The fact that a large and diverse membership do not agree on these >> issues need not "tear us apart" if we can discuss and resolve issues >> without animosity. If we agree that "community over code" is one of >> the defining aspects of Apache, surely we can also agree that the >> community is also more important than folks having their way over >> whether or not Apache allows (or experiments with) directed funding >> or other models of promoting/sustaining projects and their infrastructure. >> >> Best, >> >> jzb >> -- >> Joe Brockmeier >> j...@zonker.net >> Twitter: @jzb >> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >>
