In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter M. Goldstein wrote: > [...] >> The legalese argument simply doesn't apply (there is exactly one >> project that currently follows these guidelines, and notification >> didn't come from the ASF but rather from a concerned contributor). > > Bandwidth is not free. We are running on donated bandwidth. You should > be concerned too IMO, that Apache resources are not used badly and > unnecessarily. Exactly. To some extent, it is starting to become a requirement that all ASF projects follow some guidelines so that they can be mirrored properly. No requirement yet, but in six months? I would see it happening once the majority are on board and only the folks that *aren't* doing it are sticking out like sore thumbs. If somebody wants to take the time to do it right, then great. It simply means that you'll be on board that much sooner. >... >> So, while I may be in danger of beating a dead horse, I veto this with >> a -1. You are *VOTING* with a -1. You CANNOT veto this. Vetoes are *only* for technical reasons applying to the code. You cannot veto procedural items. Further, if Noel wants to take on the work necessary to get the distribution done properly and that delays his other work... so be it. It is Noel's time, not JAMES' time. If somebody wants to cover for the slippage because Noel is doing something that interests him some more, then they are free to do it. But for stuff like this, the JAMES project cannot mandate that a person does <this> or <that>. If a majority of the votes go against the guidelines, then fine. But it takes a majority to do so; vetoes cannot stop it alone. Cheers, -g -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
