On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Tim O'Brien wrote:
On the -1's (or at least the negative opinions to this), we have Tim who thinks that it's a waste to talk to SD and we should focus on making sure the branding message is clearer.
Henri, I'm not -1, you can send it if you want. You are (after all) Jakarta. :-)
Thus while there's lots of agreement, my role is to stride purposefully around doing things, but when there's disagreement my role is to get confused and seek consensus.
The community's -1s are the essential check to stop me being dangerously despotic. For example, I've no actual idea how many commits to Tomcat 5 and its accompanying modules are coming from the time that JBoss are donating, via their employees.
It may be that leading contributor is, while not an 'Apache Way' to discuss something, a completely true piece of investigative journalism. There are definitely parts of Commons where a little bit of investigation could point out that "Yes, on DBUtils 1.0, David Graham was the lead developer" (Sorry David :) ).
I doubt SD Magazine have actually done this, but they may have a correct answer anyway.
I just wanted to voice the opinion that I don't think it constructive. Emotions on the whole JBoss/Apache issue run high, let's leave SD magazine out of it, and try to get JBoss to start calling it Apache Tomcat. Even though I know many think it an impossible task, let's resolve to sit down with someone from JBoss and hammer out the central issues like the "Apache Tomcat" trademark.
Noted. As with Dim's in his email, I'm not 100% sure what official stand/communication has actually been taken with JBoss over the last year. What I know of was at an informal-level between the board and JBoss.
I think we need to try to get the situation back into the hands of the Jakarta PMC/Tomcat committers so we can resolve things more amicably, as the board level things may seem too formal.
I'll add it to my list of todos for the next quarter (another is hassling the board more about LGPL as that seemed to lose steam in the last quarter).
I still think that the SD email is necessary, but I think the paragraph concerning contribution is on shaky ground; instead it should just highlight that we (the ASF) do not focus on leading contributions. I'll rewrite after I eat breakfast and send a copy to all the interested lists.
Hen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
