Will Glass-Husain wrote:
Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from
POI.  See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI
participation.  (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had
been lacking).   The discussion was civil up until recently.
Okay. It just didn't LOOk that way.

I am wondering about this vote though.  Why now?  and what's the
significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging?  To me it seems the
flattening of svn is of little significance.  After a year with the
new structure, I see individual cases where committers have
cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a
big impact for many subprojects.
So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote?  Is there a
pressing need to get access to POI svn?  Are there patches being
submitted but not going in?  Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta,
make it more definable?  Or is there something going on with POI that
we should discuss publically?

There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of
POI and Jakarta.  Maybe we should have that discussion instead of
voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue.

I'd like to see a TLP. Or baring that an exit.

On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey I have an idea!  If it doesn't pass this time we can call another
vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC
members are around...  Then 3 months later do it again.

-1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up
backstory for me)

Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
>> >
>> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had
>> suggested the
>> > requirement.
>> >
>> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original
>> details?
>> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
>> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
>> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a >> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly
>> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to
>> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking
>> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd
>> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP
>> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between
>> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am
>> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold
>> for any of our mailing lists.
>> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive
>> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they
>> hold any weight or value to the ASF.
> Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making
> sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets
> to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them
> [Geir?].
> Hen
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to