Let me see if I read you right, Pierre. Effectively, you're saying that imposing a blanket bylaws system should help to prevent some rare cases of established projects going off the handle? Is this a correct representation of the point of this discussion?
I am not as eloquent as you're in painting the picture of the law-less land, thus please accept my apologies in advance if I came to the wrong conclusions. With best regards, Cos On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 01:34PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > Like expressed earlier, that loosely way of interpreting ASF guidelines has > led to the situation that the board charges newly established projects to > define its bylaws. Charges that are then disregarded by the project and not > followed up on by the board and or the appointed VP of the project. > > It is such that makes the determination of 'doing the right thing, doing it > the right way' less credible in stead of more. The show flake falling down > at the top of the mountain creates the avalanche in the valley. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > ...The latest posting by Jan proves the point of the necessity of good > > > per-project bylaws when it comes to deviating from the generic guidelines > > > of the ASF... > > > > But as others have said, the best is to stick to those guidelines and > > use the default bylaws, unless it's absolutely necessary to do things > > differently. > > > > -Bertrand > >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
