Huh? How am I able to represent your view as well as you can? If you want me to restate *my* view I can do that by quoting my own view I will quote my summary from earlier in this thread: "In the absence of [project] bye-laws the defaults apply. "
-----Original Message----- From: Pierre Smits [mailto:pierre.sm...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 11:09 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubating, Graduating & Code of conduct @ The ASF (spin-off of Better specifying....) I am confident, Ross, that you are equally capable of doing that. So why don't you give it a go? 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 8:53 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > So can you summarize what you are saying. > > Sent from Surface > > From: Pierre Smits<mailto:pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > Sent: ?Monday?, ?July? ?6?, ?2015 ?10?:?47? ?AM > To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> > > 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 >
