On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi David and Greg, > > > On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > >... > > BTW in all previous cases of podlings exiting I could find, a vote was > taken (see below links and there’s more I’ve not listed). In most cases > this was to retire rather than returning/going elsewhere, so the situation > not exactly the same, but that’s a data point all the same. > That doesn't justify requiring a [VOTE]. > If anyone thinks a VOTE is not necessary then please discuss why on > another thread. > I merely added a parenthetical to my vote. As did David. But sure. Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC. Think about the result of this purported [VOTE]. Two answers: 1) yes, you are free to leave 2) no, you are NOT free to leave What does (2) mean? That we hold the community's repositories hostage? That we don't return them? On what right? On what *ethical* right? The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why? The *Zipkin community* owns those repositories. Not Apache or the IPMC. Let the community take them where they want. If a podling graduates, then the community and its resources are recognized by the Board as an official part of the Foundation. Unless/until then, we should be very careful about spurious claims of ownership. Years back, we talked about not wanting to accept "hostile forks" of other projects as podlings. We did not want to be party to such a calamity. By voting "no" in this case, the IPMC would be the one *creating* the hostile fork. Not merely accepting it as a podling. Talk about bad karma. Regards, -g
