On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have tried to follow as much as emails as possible but it's >>> overwhelming. Anyway I feel that several questions do not longer >>> belong to the pre-incubation phase but should be clarified after we >>> have accepted the podling. Many questions are around "Can/Should we >>> have a second office community?", "is ASL better or GPL", "can we >>> handle all the dependencies" or "what direction should it go". I mean >>> "svn vs git" is really a topic for the openopffice-dev list. >>> >>> Most of them are all questions we can answer when have a podling - we >>> need votes to decide and a podling population. At the moment its just >>> noise. And to be honest, a separate ML for these issues would be also >>> cool. >>> >>> My question: are we already able to vote for the podling or not? >>> >>> If no - what questions need to be answered before we vote? >> This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for >> entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be >> answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this >> proposal would be because it would be in the best interests of the >> community to not split the FOSS development and compete with >> LibreOffice. >> >> I think we should seriously consider that before voting. >> >> I agree with all the arguments that ASF members have been putting >> forward about the good things for an OO project here at the ASF. I >> much prefer the Apache License and the freedom it provides to that of >> copyleft licenses. The ASF is a great home for projects and has a long >> history with established processes and policies. However, I have great >> respect for what LibreOffice have done and the community they have >> established. The copyleft license isn't ideal IMO, but other than that >> I have great respect for what they've managed to setup and the vibrant >> community that they've established. If LibreOffice hadn't happened >> then I think it would be better to have an OO project here at the ASF. >> But it has and they are too far down the road and have expended too >> much effort to make it appealing for them to join in here. >> >> We should also remember that, with Oracle abandoning OO, we are being >> used to facilitate their business relations with IBM. IBM could (and >> still can) decide to put its efforts into LibreOffice and while we may >> have philosophical differences over license, they surely don't as we >> witnessed when they transferred their efforts from our Harmony project >> to the GPL'd OpenJDK. > > Interesting point. I wonder if there is an explanation for this > inconsistency from the IBM perspective. > >> IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft >> license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether >> to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos >> interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. >> >> I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. > > I share your concerns; but the fact is we have no "content" > requirements in the Incubator. We have never imposed technical, > political or business requirements on podlings. As a result, we > have been "used" to promote silly (IMO) middleware bloat and > proprietary code dumps. On the other hand, we have grown some > decent communities around stuff that smelled at first. Each time > something smelly like this shows up, I ask myself whether it makes > sense to push for "standards," but I have a hard time coming up with > a set of principles that we would likely agree on. Can you?
No I can't - but if enough people have concerns then theres probably a good reason for it. If not then it deserves to pass. Niall Niall > Phil >> Niall >> >> >>> I saw there is a lot of support for this proposal and the initial >>> committers list has grown immense in just a few days. There is already >>> a good amount of mentors and I will add myself too. Code grant seems >>> to be OK and all the other entry criterias seem to be taken. If the >>> would vote would be today, I would vote +1 clearly, because everything >>> we want in the Incubator seem to be solved. >>> >>> Again are we able to vote on the podling? If no, please specifiy why? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Christian >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
