On Thursday, 2013-03-28, Chris Douglas wrote: [...] > Is this a question of standing, where material harm needs to be demonstrated? > The IPMC is needlessly inefficient and abusive of its podlings. Novel > "compliance" mechanisms are literally invented and argued about on > general@ during podlings' release votes.[1] The cultural clashes that > Chris's proposal refers to generate huge amounts of traffic on > general@ and private@, as ASF members argue the semantics of core > concepts. And it's not just edge-case legal issues; some are as basic > as the definition of "veto". > These discussions create needless confusion and deeply resented churn > for podlings. The asymmetry in power teaches submissiveness to ASF > members, rather than independence and self-sufficiency. There are, in > truth, *many* active interpretations of the Apache Way practiced > across the ASF. Reconciling them is not the mission of the incubator. > Putting esoteric debates on the critical path of new projects is > absurd and harmful.
> [1] http://s.apache.org/lFI As someone who is relatively new to the ASF and who's first behind the scenes contact with Apache was the incubation process, I can tell that this is absolutely true. Podlings find themselves in a kafkaesque world where many rules are undocumented or can only be found in old mailing list discussions. Apache and this list especially can feel like a really hostile place for newbies. Regards, Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
