I think the community behind this proposal is ready to accept defeat at this point. With DataStax' objection, the project simply can't be brought under the auspices of the ASF unless DataStax reverses its stance.
Personally, I'm somewhat discouraged to see a company I once held in high regard in terms of supporting OSS and the ASF take this action. This represents a further erosion of that respect. It is what it is. I can't fault DataStax for trying to protect their bottom line. They are well within their rights here. It could be considered a stain on their relationship with the ASF, or not. The community seems committed to moving forward with a fork, whether it is considered hostile or friendly. From discussions I've been privy to, if DataStax were to reverse their stance, this community would come back to the ASF in a heartbeat. There's a community behind this code, and they deserve the right to move forward. I think they will, unfortunately not at the ASF. At least for now. Nothing would please me more than to see this community be able to come to Apache. -Taylor > On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:15 AM, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: > > I like the re-licensing threat.... get it forked on github and prove to > them there is a willing community out there! > > Tom > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:17 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
