Any mentors out there? What's next? Should we have another vote with the new text which was suggested on the legal-list after we started this vote?
/Anne On 16 Jan, 2010, at 16:42 , Ethan Jewett wrote: > 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
