On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:47 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> >> and BFDL/NIH-tier levels of "we don't do that, we do things this way... my >> way or the highway." > > That is not quite true nor fair. > > It does not take a BFDL/NIH-er, for example, to say "We don't > release s/w under the GPLv3", nor if someone sez that, does > that make them a BDFL. Nor does anyone have the ability > to have anything like "my way or the highway" even stick.
We aren't discussing GPLv3 or any other ASF-wide policy here. We are discussing how the HTTP Server project versions and releases software for the public good. There are dozens of ways we can accomplish that, all of which fit into ASF policy. We operate by consensus. Which means, if any PMC member is unwilling to accept change to our release or versioning, we are stuck with status quo. Any time the argument against a change becomes "that isn't how we have done it", the argument needs to be judged by the success of that status quo. This entire thread is predicated with my belief that the status quo processes, not the code base or committers, has problems. All the proposals made in previous threads on the subject were shouted down, and the project release management, measured in bugs and regressions, still suffers all the same issues as it has for a number of years. Could you be kind enough to point out where you have proposed or accepted a change to the release process that we can use as a starting point of a dialog? We are obviously not talking past one another anymore that the process stands to be improved. Since you have objected to each of my prior proposals (and all those presented by others), I'd like to find out if we can converge on one of your proposals?
