On Nov 5, 2017 10:47, "Eric Covener" <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Nov 4, 2017 23:18, "Jacob Champion" <champio...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 2017 8:44 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >>> Will it be a fork of latest 2.4.x and trunk things will have to be >>> proposed, voted and backported? > > That is not how httpd has operated previously. Again, a proposal > to change the process and a vote is needed if this is desired. > > > Time for a vote I think. > > Time to read the archives. Then perhaps time for a concrete proposal, to > then say so long to the remaining holdouts for evolutionary or disruptive > development, and for the last hangers-on to ride this project into its > twilight. Time to read the code of conduct. --------- Asking for the PMC to examine why the project adopted the model it has is not a CoC violation by my reading. That is using CoC as a club to end disagreement. Suggested reading; it is interesting to me how many participants of these threads are now absent, and of those who remain, who are sitting on opposite positions of what they held before; http://markmail.org/message/w2bwnszl7tx766oc Switch httpd-2.0 to RTC? Apr 8, 2002 5:38:40 pm http://httpd.markmail.org/thread/w5syvr5temiylewp CTR policy for experimental modules in A2.0? RTC killed the open source project Aug 8, 2005 1:32:51 pm Nothing wrong with proposing changes, discussing and holding votes, but seems unwise to do so without reviewing the original discussion that led to the original vote results and resulting policy, IMO.