"Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
>
> If there is a hidden agenda there then you're better than I
> at spotting it.
:
> Now tell me where the hidden agenda is.
If there were one, I would not be able to tell you because a) it
would be hidden, and b) it would be *your* agenda, not mine.
As it is, I do not know if there is one or not.
> If it's not technical, then it's social (you just
> plain don't like us... Not a problem)
Not so. Social and political issues can prevent technically
valid things from happening. So it *could* be a problem,
and may be. That you think it would not be a problem
does not help.
> From a political standpoint I'm pissed that Covalent
> Technologies can cut a deal with Compaq for the new
> Compaq Apache server (wonder if it will ship with or
> without compression (details are tough to find on this
> whole deal).
This is news to me, and certainly no permission has been
given to either Compaq nor Covalent to call anything a
'Compaq Apache server.' I am on the ASF board and I
can tell you this has not come before us.
> But you know what, more power to Ryan and his crew for
> doing something like that.
What are you whinging about? Nothing prevents RC from entering
into a deal with Compaq or anyone else to ship mod_gzip.
If you are upset about the use of the word 'Apache' in this
news-to-me deal, it is misplaced -- because no such name has
been approved by the ASF.
> Did I ever see a vote for something like that, no...
What are thinking would be voted on? The name, or permission
for Covalent to make a deal with Compaq? The former would be,
but has not come up; the latter is no-one's business but Compaq's
and Covalent's.
> This whole conversation is mute, include, exclude, revoke
> whatever, mod_gzip will always be available from Kevin and
> I and we will support it.
>
> If you don't include it, all it means is another click to
> our website.
Then what is your motivation for trying to get it into the
Apache distribution? I am not being snide, I am asking
seriously. I suspect it is to get the marketing bulge of
being able to say it is there, which is fine -- have I guessed
correctly? AFAIC that is a perfectly valid reason, although
making it happen requires an informal social contract with the
AG -- which is where a lot of problems seem to lie.
> Later...
I notice you failed to answer the question I posed you. Just
in case they were overlooked, here it is again:
> "Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
> >
> > After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work.
>
> Oh? Then what is the explanation for Kevin publicly
> soliciting an individual to do something that recent
> discussion has shown the group considers moot?
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
