No worries, Konstantin. I won't hold that against you. 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 8:57 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > Just to point to the source of my confusiony. My impression came from this > part: > > > > > 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. > > The subsequent colorful passage about the snowflake led me to believe that > you're indeed found a way to prevent said snowflake from landing on the > top of > the mountain. Looks like my interpretation of the meaning of it was quite > suboptimal. Thanks for the explanation, Pierre. > > Cos > > On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:47PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > No, I am not saying that, neither explicitly nor effectively. Thus no, > not > > a correct representation of the point of discussion. Maybe you got that > > impression (regarding blanket bylaws, or projects going off the handle) > by > > reading the postings of others. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Pierre > > > > Op maandag 6 juli 2015 heeft Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> het > > volgende geschreven: > > > > > 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 <javascript:;>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Pierre Smits < > pierre.sm...@gmail.com > > > <javascript:;>> > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pierre Smits > > > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > > Based Manufacturing, Professional > > Services and Retail & Trade > > http://www.orrtiz.com >
