On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:

> 
> My understanding is that once the policy has been approved the veto will
> either be removed, or the policy will make clear what is to be done.
> 

The PMCs choice is to accept EPL licensed artifacts that don't come from 
Apache, or you can re-implement them all. No one is going to strong-arm me into 
bringing any of those dependencies here and Ralph's Ursula Move[1]  was pretty 
much the final nail in the coffin. I resigned from the Maven PMC specifically 
because of Ralph Goers. When some guy who done virtually nothing for two years 
vetoes someone like Benjamin then it's not a meritocracy, it's ridiculous is 
what it is.

After 10 years of working on this stuff, if the Maven PMC feels I'm going to do 
something that's not in the best interest of Maven users then I'm not going to 
try and convince anyone. Say no to the dependencies that Sonatype has created 
and works on, re-implement them and good luck with that. You will completely 
cripple the project. Ralph just guaranteed those dependencies are never coming 
back here. He just totally abused his unjustified position on the Maven PMC. 
Someone will have to run me over with a truck to change that now. What Ralph 
did is irreversible even if the veto is. 

I have always done what is in the best interest of users, and I always will. 
Sonatype, my investors, and anyone else have no control over me when it comes 
to Maven. Brett and John have first hand experience about what happens when I 
believe there is a transgression and what I will do to try and course correct.

> I can appreciate that for somebody who has resigned from the PMC and the
> Apache foundation it may appear that the veto has come out of thin air.
> 
> -Stephen


[1]: http://ceki.blogspot.com/2010/05/forces-and-vulnerabilites-of-apache.html

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.

 -- Unknown



Reply via email to