> -----Original Message----- > From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > As a matter of fact we have quite some committers in our > community that are sponsored by the companies they are > working for. Who is able to define whether who is the > "leading" or "main" contributor? I would not want to risk > picking the wrong one and pissing off other contributors. So > either name them all or drop this classification. Terms like > "main" or "leading" > are a problem. >
Again, anyone outside of the ASF is allowed to make any observations they feel are warranted - regardless of ASF corporate policy. It might fly in the face of what the ASF wants, but it doesn't make the statement valid or invalid. Whether the PRC agrees with "a leading", "the leading", "a main", "the main", makes little difference. SD can say what they say; the real issue is the relationship between the ASF and JBoss. People at the ASF are so "worked up" over JBoss in particular (and vice versa). Every time someone outside of both ASF and JBoss just makes an observation that JBoss is a leading contributor, we set up the PR machine and launch off some emails, maybe a few people will go over to the TSS forums and blow up at Jboss people, and I could expect a few nasty blog rants from both sides. I just don't think it's constructive, that's all. Believe me now or hear me later - there are good things to be gained from calming this situation down a little. Tim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
