I'd leave it open for now. I imagine/hope there are enough people aware of this thread that the sentiments expressed here might affect a change.
-Taylor > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:57 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > With obvious block due to Datastax response, shall I CLOSE this DISCUSS > thread until further updates, if any? > >> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> For the record I'd be -1 as well unless DataStax chose to support it. >> >> I would like to give them time to change their mind though. >> >> -Taylor >> >>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com >>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sep 29, 2016 19:22, "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgo...@gmail.com >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>> ... >>>> They can block a move to the ASF, but they can’t block a fork of the >>> project moving elsewhere. Strong communities will regroup and live on. >>> DataStax' reluctance to allow it could very easily be interpreted as a >>> rejection of the ASF governance model or the Foundation itself. >>> >>> Yes, the community could certainly launch their fork at GitHub or some >>> such. DataStax provided them with that ability via the ALv2 license. The >>> ASF is not a necessary step for that community. >>> >>>> ... >>>> Can we wait and see if DataStax is willing to do the right thing before >>> shooting down the proposal as a hostile fork? >>> >>> My vote remains -1. That can change, based on their choices. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -g >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> <javascript:;> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> <javascript:;> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
