On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Martin P. Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, 10 May 2012 16:56:58 UTC+1, C Anthony Risinger wrote: >> >> i'm curious how, as arbiters, they actually resolve conflicts ... i >> mean, what would have been the process, if we stepped back 3 weeks and >> were already under the PSF? > > I don't know how psf would do it but usually what happens that stability is > preferred over all, as such you would have to resolve to fork the project, > and then when it is obvious that your project is far more accepted, a merge > will be proposed.
that seems reasonable. On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Chris Brody <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This centralizes the disputed assets - name, code, mailing list, repo, >>> etc, under the PSF, with PSF administration, but gives everyone enough >>> access to code, commit, etc - and fork development, if need be. > > +1 (though I have personal preference for ASF, original idea came from > Google GWT which itself was also under Apache license) that is a good point; i don't have a strong preference as i don't know much about all this. on what merits can the two (and/or others) be compared? >> i'm curious how, as arbiters, they actually resolve conflicts ... i >> mean, what would have been the process, if we stepped back 3 weeks and >> were already under the PSF? > > IMHO the change happened way to quickly. There should have been public > notification and discussion on the mailing list before the change of > ownership was done, with all major stakeholders including the owner of > Pyjamas (Luke) and the owner of pyjs.org at the time (I forgot his > name). I cannot believe any major software foundation would accept > such a quick change of ownership, with no public discussion > whatsoever. yes ... in retrospect, even though i 100% stand by the decisions made, i probably would have just avoided all this tension and created a `uxpy.net` fork ... i can't say i much like being slanderized across the intertubes. believe it or not, i and others thought we had done the best thing for everyone ... and thought Luke could be retained. the fork was the easy way out in my mind, i never expected to be hit with heavy allegations of this and that ... I didn't know how Luke would respond to my negotiations with the former owner, esp. when i was not prepared to take over the assets. my fear was he could easily lock myself and all others out, shut down the services, etc etc ... i had no hand to play, so i waited until i knew i did. anyways, i dont want to segue this conversation, but it should be known that i had no interest in "fame and fortune", or any other personal motives; the only intents were to lift constraints and open additional possibility. all things considered, i think pyjs will find success. oh well, much was learned ... hakuna matata, it means no worries. -- C Anthony
