I'm for the "Portions Copyright..." wording. What I have no idea about is whether that is a substantial enough change to require another vote. Mentors?
Ethan On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: > Vote results after 3+ days: > > ESME PPMC +1: 6 > IMPC +1: 3 > IMPC -1: 1 > > There has been further discussion / clairification on this issue on > the legal-discuss mailing list since this vote was initiated. In > particular, the post from William A. Rowe Jr. on Jan 13 and from Henri > Yandell yesterday. I'm unsure whether the suggestions in these two > posts have an impact on the changes that we are considering. > > In particular the suggestion of > > /* > * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC > */ > > rather than > > "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)" > > which was the basis for this vote. > > D. > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ---- >> >>> From: Erik Engbrecht <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:40:43 PM >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47) >> >> [... snip stuff I've addressed separately ...] >> >>> There is no question that many of David's principles are the anathema of >>> ASF's principles. That has been clear for a shockingly long time. But my >>> understanding is that legally there is no dispute. If the community is >>> going to put ASF principles aside in order to keep the code, then it should >>> just do it. Weaving principles into the discussion just introduces >>> ambiguity, prevents closure, and ultimately hampers the a developing >>> community's growth. This, I believe is what the leaders of the ESME >>> community just voted to do. >>> >>> Or the community can bite the bullet, stand by ASF principles even though it >>> appears to be legally unnecessary, and yank David's code. >> >> Looking over the original ESME proposal, one of the core reasons it was >> proffered to the ASF was to take advantage of the ASF's community-building >> experience. A good part of how we build communities here is to establish >> core values that most Apache projects share, and that people outside of the >> committer community can easily recognize and elect to be a part of. >> >> Amongst those values is the notion of equitable and fair treatment of all >> contributors to a project, be they PMC members, committers, or more outside >> participants. To be sure, meritocratic governance involves certain people >> expressing greater and lesser control over areas of the project where overall >> proficiency is mixed. But in the end people express themselves on open >> forums, >> largely using their vote, where *anyone* can constructively criticise their >> words, >> and where noone is barred from participation other than those who act to >> poison >> the commmunity. (I don't mean to suggest David is in the latter category >> here.) >> >> "Putting ASF principles aside" to me implies this community still has a >> number of lessons to learn about building an open ASF-style community. >> I personally don't view the current VOTE in that light- I think people >> are trying to do what is best, at least in the short term, for the project. >> Balancing the long-term interests of the project (and the org) is a more >> challenging question, and I see Gianugo's concerns here more along those >> lines. >> Trying to rationally address all relevant concerns is another important >> aspect >> of Apache-style decision making, but I think we've talked long enough on this >> VOTE thread. >> >> >> >> >
