Fwd: Apache / mail-archive.com
This forum is probably more applicable for these kinds of offers: Begin forwarded message: From: Jeff Breidenbach jeff (at) jab.org Date: 16. Dezember 2004 09:16:49 MEZ Subject: Apache / mail-archive.com ... Also I noticed Apache lists are using our service pretty heavily. That's great - please shout if you have customization requests. Cheers, Jeff The Mail Archive www.mail-archive.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 December 2004 08:42 To: community@apache.org Cc: community@apache.org Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed At 08:30 PM 12/16/2004, Stephen McConnell wrote: Concerning our decision making processes, I have a couple of questions... * What do you think is the role of a PMC in our decision making process? They have absolute decision making process within the board's mandate for their project. Bill: According to Greg Stein this should not be the case. Greg holds to the opinion that the appointed Chair is the PMC and that the members are simply an artificial construct. I should point out that Greg's position seems to contradict section 6.3 of the bylaws in that it is stated that a PMC is a committee with a designated chairman. The bylaws also seem to clearly state that the committee is responsible for active management. In the Avalon case-study the Chair largely ignored the notion of committee responsibility and chose instead to exercise privileges related to the role of officer of the foundation. In doing so he actively and publicly took actions without consulting the Avalon PMC and on at least one occasion justified this on the grounds that the PMC would not agree with his position. IMO there are two related issues here: a) the lack of accountability of the Chair towards the committee b) the reluctance of the Board to properly recognize the PMC as the responsible entity I think that there are practices that can be adopted to address these issues. For example a committee should have the ability to remove a chair (for example via a vote of no-confidence) and such an action should be recognized as within the authority of the committee. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: I give you an example of what I call 'compromise' and 'collaboration' ; Those events as you describe them did happen. If they were the only ones, we'd have a happy healthy community. :o) Each individual works on what he/she finds interesting, relevant and important. Opinions are appreciated, but by no means right, just because a group within the community say so. Actually, all it takes to veto a change is one PMC member to cast a -1 with a technical justification. The issue is how a community deals with those vetos, and how progress can be made by resolving them. So, please bring to the table a particular case, since I fail to recall any such veto being ignored and/or not worked on to be resolved, other than the mentioned Leo Simons' (was he even PMC at the time? still not ignored.) one, which got caught up in a larger mess. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 04:29 To: community@apache.org; Noel J. Bergman Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: I give you an example of what I call 'compromise' and 'collaboration' ; Those events as you describe them did happen. If they were the only ones, we'd have a happy healthy community. :o) Each individual works on what he/she finds interesting, relevant and important. Opinions are appreciated, but by no means right, just because a group within the community say so. Actually, all it takes to veto a change is one PMC member to cast a -1 with a technical justification. The issue is how a community deals with those vetos, and how progress can be made by resolving them. So, please bring to the table a particular case, since I fail to recall any such veto being ignored and/or not worked on to be resolved, other than the mentioned Leo Simons' (was he even PMC at the time? still not ignored.) one, which got caught up in a larger mess. Leo was not on the PMC at the time - in fact I think he posted his veto to the PMC list after having left Avalon. Also Leo retracted that veto not long after posting it. But Noel was a PMC Member so he's aware of this - so perhaps Noel is referring to something else? Steve. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - 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]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 11:19, Stephen McConnell wrote: Greg holds to the opinion that the appointed Chair is the PMC and that the members are simply an artificial construct. Before anyone is requesting the quote where Steve get that notion from; http://www.apache.org/~niclas/irc/2004-05-15.022554.txt which is an IRC session regarding the fork/transfer/something of Phoenix to James, via an SVN import into Avalon's SVN space. Everyone is aware that this IRC session is logged and available to the public (before people hammer for that.). Following quotes from Greg Stein (and one McConnell); (12:10:11) gstein: mcconnell: aaron *is* the PMC ((12:46:05) gstein: the members of the PMC is an artificial construct created by the Chair 12:48:15) gstein: mcconnell: the board expects a PMC to operate in a consensus fashion, (12:48:38) gstein: but when a PMC *cannot* operate in a consensus fashion, then the Board leaves it to the Chair to figure out the right solution. (12:52:47) gstein: if Aaron wants to ask the PMC, then he can. (12:57:17) mcconnell: then don't ask aaron for an opinion because aaron has not talked with his PMC MEMBERS (12:57:29) gstein: mcconnell: doesn't matter to me. that's up to him. In my personal opinion that also seems to suggest that committer and/or PMC vetoes are also of no interest. The PMC Chair is an ultimate decision maker (at least in the view of Greg), who from time to time decides how to deal with disagreements. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 05:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Regardless of whether there was any 'right' or 'wrong' position, it appears that there were irreducible differences. I only recall one side expressing a willingness to compromise. My memory may be imperfect, though. Now, if I have no sense of collaboration, taking care of the Legacy and compromise (in this case balancing my time between Excalibur vs Merlin), then I have no clue what you guys expect from people. And I have no clew why you think I'm speaking specifically about you, nor why you're dragging 'legacy' and 'collaboration' into your reply to me. ISTR some issues about ignored vetos and vetos without sufficient justification. (Don't know what ISTR stands for) 'I Seem To Recall' The only veto I know of that has been in dispute, is Leo Simons veto against the new site, which in defense I say; 1. It came in late, long after the change was executed. 2. His issue was regarding the change of wording in the specification of the AF4.2, which he claimed was an incompatible change for component authors. 3. In the midst of that clarification, heaps of people stepped in with other issues, murking what is on the table of a veto and what is not; There is no statute of limitations on vetos. There is no deadline. When a veto is made, it must be supported by technical justification. There are two ways to deal with a veto: 1) Address the concerns and get the vetoer to rescind it; or 2) let it stand and the vetoed aspect stays out (getting removed if necessary) of the code. It can't get much clearer than that. The agenda was to promote Merlin into a platform for component oriented architecture. When that was considered being against approx half the PMC and some additional developers, we started the process of taking Merlin to TLP, but the Excalibur group just needed to be better, and by throwing in a second proposal, at least one member of the Board intervened privately, and asked us to drop the Merlin TLP and forge ahead with the new vision. Now, I call that a mandate. Please clarify what you mean by 'mandate' here. That the board was mandating that you drop the Merlin TLP idea? Mandate that the Board, or parts thereof, thought it was better to spin the Legacy into a new project and let Avalon grow into a Merlin-based community and the visions we had. That's nothing like a mandate in any of its definitions. You appear to be using heavily loaded terminology to excuse something, and using it incorrectly at that. Someone privately makes a request, and you're interpreting it as an official position of all (or a majority) of the board? Yet, Excalibur TLP without me and Steve was manna from heaven for this group, but it was definately a matter of balkanization along people and not technology. Something Mr Coar would never agree to. One thing I don't agree to is people putting words in my mouth. Please cease doing so. So you want the quote? You have been hammering me before for publicizing private mails quote timezone=UTC+0800 On Monday 27 September 2004 22:37, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: snip/ So let's cut straight to the chase; What are the severe reservations that you seem to have against the Metro proposal? Just spill it out so we can solve it :o) it appears to me to be a balkanisation based on people rather than on technology. /quote That was the only reason you stated against the Metro proposal. I can accept that never is a bit strong, but I can't interpret your response in any other way. Then you're being uncommonly obtuse, and apparently only to suit your own purposes. 'I have a serious reservation about this because it appears to be xxx' is a lng way from 'I will never agree to this because it is definitely xxx.' And evidently you did absolutely nothing to 'solve' (your word) or otherwise address my reservation -- either that or you're hauling out my remark sans context in order to support your current point. Either way, you put words in my mouth, and I requested that you stop. Dredging out personal email (which, yes, you didn't bother to ask about first, but in *this case* I don't mind) doesn't make that acceptable. So this handwave doesn't excuse you claiming that I would 'never accept' something. And I ask again that you stop. Phrasing it 'which I don't think Mr Coar would ever accept' is okey, because it makes it clear that you're stating your *guess* of how I would react. As far as it goes, I continue to stand by that reservation. IMHO, setting up a TLP because the would-be participants can't get along with the other people in their current TLP -- or those people can't get along with them -- is not a good path. Among other things, it could give both sets of people the idea that being fractious and divisive is acceptable behaviour. - --
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:41, Noel J. Bergman wrote: You seem to keep forgetting that I supported Merlin havine a home at the ASF. Very much appreciated :o) , as I know you normally saw through all the BS that was part of the Avalon stage. Point? That consensus by attrition is a negatively loaded term, yet a natural occurring thing in all projects (people do leave healthy projects) which is replenished with new blood (but in our case that is also turned into something bad). SO the point is; Consensus by attrition is FUD, and hard to argue against, yet said enough many times, it has turned into a fact. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Actually, all it takes to veto a change is one PMC member to cast a -1 with a technical justification. The issue is how a community deals with those vetos, and how progress can be made by resolving them. So, please bring to the table a particular case, since I fail to recall any such veto being ignored and/or not worked on to be resolved, other than the mentioned Leo Simons' (was he even PMC at the time? still not ignored.) one, which got caught up in a larger mess. Out of simple curiousity, what would this accomplish? I am not being flip. It seems clear that there are aspects on which all the players are unlikely to ever agree, so this would seem likely to prolong the vocal non-agreement. The Avalon project has been shut down; parts have moved outside the ASF and are under active development there. What is there that requires that this become the Thread That Wouldn't Die, and why? If there's a reasonable reason, cool. Otherwise, maybe we can move on. There'll be no 'winner' here. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQcegXZrNPMCpn3XdAQHPTQP/cMGXabvnlqzYZvLjkHpZFhf1+gGiwph1 ZuvXJ5/UYnPq+hWt4RRqnLeBl0SC7JMLN9WXzGc/HZYaQ5k3qBN8B8JLZyGkH1Om z+wRbO/Zy7YswvyJ4vIg4xlHut0OXef+Sx7ePFSUQ0T3OAeIflhI+o9Gs5GaMERu idtb9YAB5No= =fxy0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:41, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Point? That consensus by attrition is a negatively loaded term, yet a natural occurring thing in all projects (people do leave healthy projects) which is replenished with new blood (but in our case that is also turned into something bad). SO the point is; Consensus by attrition is FUD, and hard to argue against, yet said enough many times, it has turned into a fact. People leaving a project for J Random Reason is acceptable attrition. People leaving because they don't agree with the majority opinion is, too. A practice of asking people to leave, or trying to drive them away, because they don't agree with you is not acceptable. Charges of the latter were levied, and as I recall were supported by the email archives. If so (i.e., if I'm not misremembering), it's a factual observation of behaviour, not FUD. I suspect Noel already has the relevant source documents ready to hand if necessary. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQceiAprNPMCpn3XdAQFiSAQArJh8/1MVGH/yPzsaS7M9gjEtkv/pyvaB L4h5ndDHLAKJaVpNG53Izlkq4H+GMsWvP/TZ4v0s3xA6lAHMoatwAjrvpxG1wgDZ k5EkiXNGBLxOxIddfZYygbnqOAm0qvdmRO4vpX/nN+vPB9APoOFKGeLzPP+ru8KC 0/p/wEfDraM= =N2QT -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 12:09, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: People leaving a project for J Random Reason is acceptable attrition. People leaving because they don't agree with the majority opinion is, too. A practice of asking people to leave, or trying to drive them away, because they don't agree with you is not acceptable. Charges of the latter were levied, and as I recall were supported by the email archives. If so (i.e., if I'm not misremembering), it's a factual observation of behaviour, not FUD. I suspect Noel already has the relevant source documents ready to hand if necessary. ( On PMC list == not in mail archives. But that is beside the point. ) It is a single occurrence in time, and in my book everyone is allowed to make occassional mistakes. You make them, I make them, everyone makes them. I think the difference of Hey, Steve that is not acceptable! warning, to a categorical character assassination across the ASF is a bit much. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 12:02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Actually, all it takes to veto a change is one PMC member to cast a -1 with a technical justification. The issue is how a community deals with those vetos, and how progress can be made by resolving them. So, please bring to the table a particular case, since I fail to recall any such veto being ignored and/or not worked on to be resolved, other than the mentioned Leo Simons' (was he even PMC at the time? still not ignored.) one, which got caught up in a larger mess. Out of simple curiousity, what would this accomplish? That FUD is prevalent in ASF establishment, against its own contributors, for unknown reasons, possibly unintentionally, by an unnamed, possibly unknown, person or a group of persons. And that FUD is being amplified by everyone else into facts, and *I* definately don't like these kind of patterns. If you bring accusations to the table, back them up with some examples. That is what I am asking for. If there's a reasonable reason, cool. Otherwise, maybe we can move on. There'll be no 'winner' here. I think there is procedural value of walking through what have happened. A bit of transparency among how this organization is run vs how it states it is run. I would hope that the Board has an interest in that scrutiny of its actions is regularly exercised, to clear its honorable members of any misdoings, doesn't it? Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 11:50, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Then you're being uncommonly obtuse obtuse? (is that insult or compliment? otoh getting the true meaning from a dictionary is probably not a good idea :o( ) 'I have a serious reservation about this because it appears to be xxx' is a lng way from 'I will never agree to this because it is definitely xxx.' And evidently you did absolutely nothing to 'solve' (your word) or otherwise address my reservation -- either that or you're hauling out my remark sans context in order to support your current point. Since you ask me so harshly to keep under the lid what the exchange was in the coming mails, I can apparently not clarify where the 'solution path' led to, can I? As far as it goes, I continue to stand by that reservation. IMHO, setting up a TLP because the would-be participants can't get along with the other people in their current TLP -- or those people can't get along with them -- is not a good path. Among other things, it could give both sets of people the idea that being fractious and divisive is acceptable behaviour. Yet IMNSHO the establishment of the Excalibur TLP was more balkanization along people than technology, than the establishment of a Merlin/Metro TLP. So why did that happen? Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
consensus by attrition is a negatively loaded term, yet a natural occurring thing in all projects Not when the attrition is caused by unhealthy friction and stress within the community, and an active (and stated) goal to remove those who didn't share a particular vision. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 05:10 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:41, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Point? That consensus by attrition is a negatively loaded term, yet a natural occurring thing in all projects (people do leave healthy projects) which is replenished with new blood (but in our case that is also turned into something bad). SO the point is; Consensus by attrition is FUD, and hard to argue against, yet said enough many times, it has turned into a fact. People leaving a project for J Random Reason is acceptable attrition. People leaving because they don't agree with the majority opinion is, too. A practice of asking people to leave, or trying to drive them away, because they don't agree with you is not acceptable. Charges of the latter were levied, and as I recall were supported by the email archives. If so (i.e., if I'm not misremembering), it's a factual observation of behaviour, not FUD. I suspect Noel already has the relevant source documents ready to hand if necessary. OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. Open up the Avalon PMC archives and let's really get down to real metal and in the process I think we will clean up more that a couple of popular misconceptions. In fact publishing this stuff would be in best interests of the foundation - unless of course somebody has something to hide, and surely, that's not the case, not here. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Stephen McConnell wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: * What do you think is the role of a PMC in our decision making process? They have absolute decision making process within the board's mandate for their project. According to Greg Stein this should not be the case. Greg holds to the opinion that the appointed Chair is the PMC and that the members are simply an artificial construct. I should point out that Greg's position seems to contradict section 6.3 of the bylaws in that it is stated that a PMC is a committee with a designated chairman. The bylaws also seem to clearly state that the committee is responsible for active management. Actually, it says that the that the PMC shall consist of at least one officer of the corporation, who shall be designated the PMC Chair, and who shall be primarily responsible for project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible. [The PMC Chair] actively and publicly took actions without consulting the Avalon PMC and on at least one occasion justified this on the grounds that the PMC would not agree with his position. Aaron consulted with the PMC on every occasion that I can recall. In the case of migrating Phoenix to SVN, you can hardly claim that he made a unilateral decision. Probably more than anyone, I am the resident pain-in-arse about preserving ALL history, which I consider a corporate asset. And I am absolutely unapologetic about a) the lack of accountability of the Chair towards the committee b) the reluctance of the Board to properly recognize the PMC as the responsible entity You raised similar issues in the past. If it comes down to it, the Membership owns the Foundation. The Foundation is run for the Public Good as best we can, and those who demonstrate merit are invited to become Members, Officers and Directors. a committee should have the ability to remove a chair The PMC lacks the authority to do so. Rather, the Chair has the authority to remove members of the PMC. The Chair does not report to the Committee. The Chair reports to the Board and ultimately to the Membership. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:31:03 +0100, Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. I've got a better idea ... let's not play the game (any more) at all. The decision was made (and I, as an Apache member, consider it to be in *my* best interest, as well as in the best interest of the ASF). It's done. It's over. It's now an off topic conversation for this list. If you guys had put the same amount of energy into your software that you put into your arguments, the world really would have been a better place as a result of your efforts. Craig McClanahan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 05:30 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed consensus by attrition is a negatively loaded term, yet a natural occurring thing in all projects Not when the attrition is caused by unhealthy friction and stress within the community, and an active(and stated) goal to remove those who didn't share a particular vision. If I remember correctly you coined the phrase, and now you are promoting this left right and center presumably as your rationalization of past events. Cut to chase - publish all of this - not just the selected extracts. Let's stop this hiding behind private lists. Stephen. --- Noel - 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]
Re: [PGP Global Directory] Verify Email Address - what do people think?
Shane Curcuru wrote: Anyone with a PGP key on the pgp.com keyserver likely has gotten one or more of these emails recently. I'm figuring it's legit, see http://www.pgp.com/downloads/beta/globaldirectory/faq.html It is legit. - Any security types have a decent analysis of what the new pgp.com's Directory really means, vs. using other keyservers? The point about this new one is it allows keys that are wrong (i.e. do not belong to the email address) or no longer have private keys available to be expired. - Hey: how many of us still see the pgp.com keyserver as a useful thing for building the Apache web-of-trust, versus other keyservers or simply managing keys individually? They are a convenient way to get keys. I use them all the time. A couple of things in the FAQ are interesting: - Only supports v4 keys - no RSA legacy keys (they get deleted before being posted in the directory) This is a long-standing whine by PGP types - compatibility issues, basically. - Verifies keys every 6 months by requiring a clickthru response to emails sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; only keys with email addr are supported. See above. - *Only* signatures from other keys that are also in the Directory are supported: other signatures are removed before being exposed in the Directory. (This one is mildly annoying) I wonder how many out of their claimed 107 signatures on my key will remain after this check. I'm not sure of the motivation for this one - I'll take it up with the guy in charge if you want. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. - Robert Woodruff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Stephen McConnell wrote: If I remember correctly you coined the phrase, and now you are promoting this left right and center presumably as your rationalization of past events. Cut to chase - publish all of this - not just the selected extracts. Actually, I was just checking some of the archives. Aaron may have coined it in this context. Or he just quoted me from a message I don't have handy. It doesn't really matter. I'm not sure what events you feel I'm rationalizing, since I was one of the increasingly few who was interested in seeing Merlin have a home at the ASF. Let's stop this hiding behind private lists. Assuming that no one objected to making the content public, you'd have to find someone with the time to vet the archive contents. I have no idea who has such time. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Niclas Hedhman wrote: Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: Actually, all it takes to veto a change is one PMC member to cast a -1 with a technical justification. The issue is how a community deals with those vetos, and how progress can be made by resolving them. So, please bring to the table a particular case, since I fail to recall any such veto being ignored and/or not worked on to be resolved, other than the mentioned Leo Simons' (was he even PMC at the time? still not ignored.) one, which got caught up in a larger mess. Out of simple curiousity, what would this accomplish? That FUD is prevalent in ASF establishment, against its own contributors, for unknown reasons, possibly unintentionally, by an unnamed, possibly unknown, person or a group of persons. And that FUD is being amplified by everyone else into facts, and *I* definately don't like these kind of patterns. It isn't present, so please stop spreading it. Rather send patches to the www.apache.org/foundation/ and /dev/ procedural documents which you feel are obscure. That is the normal community way. --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 December 2004 22:16 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: Maybe it's about dealing with the breach of procedure by the Chair of a PMC and ensuring that this does not get rewarded nor repeated. Once again, there was no technical breach of procedure. Of custom, perhaps, but not of procedure. This is another dead horse that should stop getting beaten. A set of polices and procedures were established and these procedures governing the decision making processes within the Avalon PMC. These policies established rules concerning discussion, voting, and reporting. Unfortunately Aaron decided that he was above these rules, a notion supported by the Chairman and a number of the members of the board. There is absolute indisputable evidence of Aaron disregard for these procedures and the opinion of the PMC. Lets' not even argue about that. Instead I would suggest you think about the impact of these actions on the PMC members and the community. The breakdown in trust underpins the subject of this thread and every single person subscribed to this list is better off for knowing that. So instead of defending the ASF - how about thinking about strengthening what you have by at least listening and perhaps suggesting ways in which we can prevent this in the future. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 05:30 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed Stephen McConnell wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: * What do you think is the role of a PMC in our decision making process? They have absolute decision making process within the board's mandate for their project. According to Greg Stein this should not be the case. Greg holds to the opinion that the appointed Chair is the PMC and that the members are simply an artificial construct. I should point out that Greg's position seems to contradict section 6.3 of the bylaws in that it is stated that a PMC is a committee with a designated chairman. The bylaws also seem to clearly state that the committee is responsible for active management. Actually, it says that the that the PMC shall consist of at least one officer of the corporation, who shall be designated the PMC Chair, and who shall be primarily responsible for project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible. And as a PMC Member you would be completely familiar with the rules and procedures of the day to day management. http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/avalon/site/central/community/process/pm c/procedures.html [The PMC Chair] actively and publicly took actions without consulting the Avalon PMC and on at least one occasion justified this on the grounds that the PMC would not agree with his position. Aaron consulted with the PMC on every occasion that I can recall. Interestingly - you were actually there when he said that! In the case of migrating Phoenix to SVN, you can hardly claim that he made a unilateral decision. Probably more than anyone, I am the resident pain-in-arse about preserving ALL history, which I consider a corporate asset. And I am absolutely unapologetic about a) the lack of accountability of the Chair towards the committee b) the reluctance of the Board to properly recognize the PMC as the responsible entity You raised similar issues in the past. If it comes down to it, the Membership owns the Foundation. The Foundation is run for the Public Good as best we can, and those who demonstrate merit are invited to become Members, Officers and Directors. If this is the best that the foundation can do or is this the simpler scenario of an organization incapable of looking at the facts and asking itself if it couldn't do better? a committee should have the ability to remove a chair The PMC lacks the authority to do so. Which is why it was presented as a recommendation! Do you see an inherent problem with the notion of a Chair accountable to the committee? Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Dec 20, 2004, at 10:39 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:31:03 +0100, Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. I've got a better idea ... let's not play the game (any more) at all. The decision was made (and I, as an Apache member, consider it to be in *my* best interest, as well as in the best interest of the ASF). It's done. It's over. It's now an off topic conversation for this list. If you guys had put the same amount of energy into your software that you put into your arguments, the world really would have been a better place as a result of your efforts. A huge +1. If anyone taking part in this thread thinks they're going to change anyone else's opinion about what happened around Avalon, they're massively deluded. Take it to alt.talk.wank for crissakes. -Fitz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: Apache / mail-archive.com
Hi Erick: I found it as a very good offer for all the apache mail lists. Will be fine if each project check if they have all the list there: dev, users and svn (cvs or whatever). Having more mail archives around for our apache lists is a good thing. Plus: another backup, diferent search engines used, more avaliability, etc. Please mail moderator read: http://www.mail-archive.com/addlist.html I hope this helps. :-D Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo. On Lun, 20 de Diciembre de 2004, 18:02, Erik Abele dijo: This forum is probably more applicable for these kinds of offers: Begin forwarded message: From: Jeff Breidenbach jeff (at) jab.org Date: 16. Dezember 2004 09:16:49 MEZ Subject: Apache / mail-archive.com ... Also I noticed Apache lists are using our service pretty heavily. That's great - please shout if you have customization requests. Cheers, Jeff The Mail Archive www.mail-archive.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Le 21 déc. 04, à 08:21, Brian W. Fitzpatrick a écrit : Take it to alt.talk.wank for crissakes. +1 -Bertrand smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 05:39, Craig McClanahan wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:31:03 +0100, Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. I've got a better idea ... let's not play the game (any more) at all. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/quotes#qt0077889 Can't agree more. Can we just lay this thread to rest? Stephen and Niclas can open up www.avalonconspiracy.com and the rest goes on with life. Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development Fighting for one's political stand is an honorable action, but re- fusing to acknowledge that there might be weaknesses in one's position - in order to identify them so that they can be remedied - is a large enough problem with the Open Source movement that it deserves to be on this list of the top five problems. --Michelle Levesque, Fundamental Issues with Open Source Software Development - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:21:09AM +0100, Stephen McConnell wrote: ... a committee should have the ability to remove a chair The PMC lacks the authority to do so. Which is why it was presented as a recommendation! Do you see an inherent problem with the notion of a Chair accountable to the committee? It would not establish the necessary paths of responsibility and oversight necessary for the proper and legal operation of the ASf. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Dec 21, 2004, at 3:23 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 05:02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: If there's a reasonable reason, cool. Otherwise, maybe we can move on. There'll be no 'winner' here. But we could proclaim Stephen and Niclas winner. Maybe this thread would end then and then we all would win... Henning - thanks - this is much better than ruining another Roxy Music song for me... :D geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Avalon RIP
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 05:02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: If there's a reasonable reason, cool. Otherwise, maybe we can move on. There'll be no 'winner' here. But we could proclaim Stephen and Niclas winner. Maybe this thread would end then and then we all would win... Amen. What once was a monolithic Avalon project has given birth to a number of progeny... some within the ASF, and some have graduated to new homes outside the ASF. While the birthing processes was painful at the time, those participating in each of the new projects appear to be happy with their new homes. Now... may Avalon finally Rest In Peace? Please? - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Niclas Hedhman wrote: The PMC Chair is an ultimate decision maker Please check the bylaws for the normal situation. But -WHEN- things break down, when there is no consensus and there is no clear ability to reach any conclusion and it is in the interest of the foundation because damage is done then the board expects the chair to act as an officer of the foundation and clean things up. Note that at this point the board has already been made well aware of the sitution and is actively monitoring the chair. Note that at -every- step in that process anyone can appeal to the board to bring things to our attention, to get us to suspend things, replace the chair, whatever. And you can count on us to act very swiftly and without hesitation is truly damaging things are happening which affect the ASF as a whole (say when knowingly shipping code without a license). However be warned that in most cases our only options are effectively to suspend the entire project. In the Avalon case we did no such drastic things but waited for months (well years really) for the community to get a grip, consensus. Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PGP Global Directory] Verify Email Address - what do people think?
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Ben Laurie wrote: The point about this new one is it allows keys that are wrong (i.e. do not belong to the email address) or no longer have private keys available to be expired. Though I kind of dislike that; I intentionally keep older email addresses on my key as in the period I worked for that employer I signed things as in that role - and those keys still are valid in that sense. I guess this forces us to start to become more careful about role accounts :-) Dw. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Requesting clarification in ByLaw text.
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 17:03, Greg Stein wrote: (12:10:11) gstein: mcconnell: aaron *is* the PMC ((12:46:05) gstein: the members of the PMC is an artificial construct created by the Chair You lost a lot of context there. Ok, agree, but I thought it being unnecessary to quote 71kB of IRC. ;o) And now I lost some more ;o) And yes, the Chair defines the rules/procedures. And when they fail to keep the project and community on track, then the Chair can change the rules. Simple as that. There have certainly been insinuations in this thread and others that my positions or stances are part of the problem. You're certainly entitled to that point of view, but I'm similarly confident that I have been acting in the best interests of the ASF in this matter, and that I have the support of the Membership. Sure you have. You definately have *my* support (although not worth much, maybe a even negative worth) as Chairman of ASF. Now, section 6.3 in the ByLaws of the ASF doesn't rhyme entirely correctly with the quotes from the IRC session. You said; The PMC is an artificial construct. Section 6.3 forgets to mention that. You said; Aaron IS the PMC. Section 6.3 uses the wording shall be primarily responsible for project(s) managed by such committee IANAL, and is not comfortable in trying to make the Section 6.3 clearer, but I beg those who a. understand the mechanics properly, b. capable of formulating the language, c. has the authority to do so, to re-phrase into a more accurate depictment of the PMC, its Chair vs its members. I mean, if the PMC is purely advisory, then write that. This whole episode is also marred by Project ByLaw, which I have been told does not to exist (or do they? confusion!), yet is mentioned that the PMC is tasked to establish them. And those established at Avalon seems partly being contradictory to what Greg says (which I take as most authorative at this juncture). Avalon bylaws are now no longer online, but let's look at an example of contradiction in the Excalibur TLP bylaws, passed by their PMC [1]; http://wiki.apache.org/excalibur/Bylaws Under 1.2.2.4 Project Management Committee, first paragraph, second sentence; quote The PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and oversight of the Apache Excalibur codebase. /quote Well, apparently the PMC is not responsible and not authorative, only the PMC Chair. IMHO, these types of discrepancies are the true root of this thread. And instead of dismissing everything from my mouth at sight and being sick of me dragging this on, please take a moment and review my findings and move for a clarification of the PMC role (and the Chair), its responsibility and authority, and make that in writing to avoid any future misunderstandings elsewhere. And in the same go, ask the PMCs to review their PMC Bylaws (if they exist) whether they are in conflict with this clarified view. Cheers Niclas [1] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=698 -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Requesting clarification in ByLaw text.
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 20:48, Niclas Hedhman wrote: This whole episode is also marred by Project ByLaw, which I have been told does not to exist (or do they? confusion!), yet is mentioned that the PMC is Sorry, I missed a few words here. Should be; ... yet is mentioned in the Board Resolution forming Avalon, that the PMC is... -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: A practice of asking people to leave, or trying to drive them away, because they don't agree with you is not acceptable. It is a single occurrence in time, and in my book everyone is allowed to make occassional mistakes. You make them, I make them, everyone makes them. I think the difference of Hey, Steve that is not acceptable! warning, to a categorical character assassination across the ASF is a bit much. No, I don't think it was a single occurrence. And there you go again with another highly charged term. What's interesting is that *you're* the one that keeps associating Stephen's name with this stuff. The only time I mentioned him by name was when I was correcting the mistake about authority. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQcgeGZrNPMCpn3XdAQEX3gQA3tcndccabAQ0V1BdUc75iGjwzv36hAuL kCp+eViD+klUy6Dq0uKiQjTVP1RkPl9fkY2tL0nMDVHfDFerlRQJPyUVfJ+iG/H/ EfuF5u3o2Bd61BAn4kptYzrUdaTdVyOhyTD77fh4XV1OFTDUQveIlk07zIHn1vnb W7dW2kQAQ0I= =9cnj -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: That FUD is prevalent in ASF establishment, against its own contributors, for unknown reasons, possibly unintentionally, by an unnamed, possibly unknown, person or a group of persons. And that FUD is being amplified by everyone else into facts, and *I* definately don't like these kind of patterns. The only FUD I see here is that which you yourself are spreading. I and others are stating facts and personal opinions; you are the one waving around the conspiracy theories. I think there is procedural value of walking through what have happened. A bit of transparency among how this organization is run vs how it states it is run. How it is run and how it is stated to have been run are one and the same. That's my opinion, and apparently the opinion of the vast majority of people involved and observing. Just because the results don't align with anyone's personal preferences does not make that equation false, nor invalidate either one componment or the other. I would hope that the Board has an interest in that scrutiny of its actions is regularly exercised, to clear its honorable members of any misdoings, doesn't it? Scrutiny, yes. Repeated baseless polemic is not interesting. Scrutiny involves examining something to see what's going on. It does not mean going in with preconceived notions and the intent to do nothing but find information supportive of them. You don't seem the least bit interested in scrutinising anything. You seem solely interested in trying to convince the readership that your view is the only true one, and that your desired outcome didn't come about because it was thwarted by some evil cabal of secret conspirators. Maybe that's not what you're trying to do, but it's sure how it's coming across to me. 'Mandate'; 'FUD'; 'character assassination'; the specific situation under discussion being inflated to 'FUD is prevalent in ASF establishment' -- sheesh. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQcggnZrNPMCpn3XdAQFD6AP+J+wGAja6Lw+wbel9xbDwppRfKj1OPYjU 7N8yAkDqTiLb3oLuZ15x5s/IYE96j0vHeKHyo6iIHb1Q8RX2byAA5aLs1HpSFyt6 T2xhfFMMb7YF+Rq5L+pOS4J+yq2DtOsuhZDquly4+HOHZQiC7JlF16F6i7MZya5Q bWfHAG7xsY4= =SA41 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. I don't intend to touch this remark. Open up the Avalon PMC archives and let's really get down to real metal and in the process I think we will clean up more that a couple of popular misconceptions. In fact publishing this stuff would be in best interests of the foundation - unless of course somebody has something to hide, and surely, that's not the case, not here. As has been pointed out, the PMC archives are open to any and all ASF members. They can examine them and draw their own conclusions. If any members do so, and feel that I, Noel, Greg -- or Niclas or Stephen -- or anyone else -- is misrepresenting things, I dearly hope they will speak up and say, 'my examination of the PMC mail archives shows me that the support *x* and don't support *y*.' - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQcgiS5rNPMCpn3XdAQHZZwP/WfkbfdUSAmrTaM+WmeIaQMDkaHR1F8sS gdmohwVjJvXi8XrVdAyWB2CzH4nrYtZ3BU1kIImupFpl6gyZOZJsD6Qd4cUrf0Zt SAtrOMvLQ/7TwU1BmEwS1MEveN9HUPE8l30KN6om13zr2OuDTQAxZBDiUvFVCeso QcYoBXdUmFM= =pvu2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 20:59, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: No, I don't think it was a single occurrence. *I* only know of one such time, in conjunction with Leo Sutic resigning on the basis of People leaving because they don't agree with the majority opinion is acceptable attrition. And there you go again with another highly charged term. Everything else you call hand waving. ;o) What's interesting is that *you're* the one that keeps associating Stephen's name with this stuff. The only time I mentioned him by name was when I was correcting the mistake about authority. Come on, I somehow get the feeling that you are trying to toy me around with your intellect and wit of words. I buy you a beer over that, no problem. I won't drag this on, since you feel like the cat playing with the mouse, so the mouse has now decided eat me, and lays down in front of the cat, awaiting it to loose interest ;o) BUT, I *would* appreciate if you spent some of your intellect looking at the more important stuff raised in this thread under new Subject. Cheers Niclas P.S. Every Sanagendamgagwedweinini on Google refers back to you. Is this some marker to all your doings on the web? -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: Once again, there was no technical breach of procedure. Of custom, perhaps, but not of procedure. This is another dead horse that should stop getting beaten. A set of polices and procedures were established and these procedures governing the decision making processes within the Avalon PMC. These policies established rules concerning discussion, voting, and reporting. Unfortunately Aaron decided that he was above these rules, a notion supported by the Chairman and a number of the members of the board. No policy adopted by a project can supercede the policies of the ASF. Any that do are null and void, or, at best, advisory only. There is absolute indisputable evidence of Aaron disregard for these procedures and the opinion of the PMC. Lets' not even argue about that. I believe there may have been disagreement between Aaron and some members of the PMC. Certainly not a majority, in which case the statement 'Aaron disregarded the opinion of the PMC' is just a handwave. If the entire PMC wanted a different approach taken, or even a majority did, then perhaps your assertion migh be consodered to have some validity. In addition, 'disregard' means 'ignore' -- which is not the same as 'considering but not choosing to accept.' So I *do* dispute your claims. 'Let's not argue' ? Then let's stop asserting controversial positions and saying they're fact and not worth arguing about. Instead I would suggest you think about the impact of these actions on the PMC members and the community. The breakdown in trust underpins the subject of this thread and every single person subscribed to this list is better off for knowing that. So instead of defending the ASF - how about thinking about strengthening what you have by at least listening and perhaps suggesting ways in which we can prevent this in the future. If I believed there was something improper here that should be prevented in the future, aye. Since I don't, then defending the ASF, and the positions taken which I consider correct and valid, is certainly preferable to *not* defending them and letting assertions I consider rubbish to prevail unchallenged and by default. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQcglvprNPMCpn3XdAQHibQP/fqSwoVRXcgcOVotP2nprlHd/TPbenhop hcJTFA1I/wzQxsNHpYCfeugzcQsLfBLNwGxl3g4iiFOUMb+me+kuRbJyy12ej7Nd eeBKcaBAW8JiOaMlSGaJPWsrRFlu8X/iEolaVMk6lrs7N8nB2eyrDnuaeR90RUGi fpq3v8j171c= =Hkmc -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 21:39, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: (I don't see any new thread yet.) Same thread, new Subject Subject = Requesting clarification in ByLaw text. -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 14:32 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: Once again, there was no technical breach of procedure. Of custom, perhaps, but not of procedure. This is another dead horse that should stop getting beaten. A set of polices and procedures were established and these procedures governing the decision making processes within the Avalon PMC. These policies established rules concerning discussion, voting, and reporting. Unfortunately Aaron decided that he was above these rules, a notion supported by the Chairman and a number of the members of the board. No policy adopted by a project can supercede the policies of the ASF. Any that do are null and void, or, at best, advisory only. Then clearly you have been negligent in your responsibility towards the Avalon community. If the Avalon policies are invalid - why did the Chairman not say so? Why did *you* remain silent? Why did every member of the board choose to sit or their thumbs? Explain how your selective and timely prose contribute to the proper running of this organization? Authority without accountability? I'm could imagine why you and other members of the board feel comfortable with this. Make a chair accountable to the committee and the next thing you know will be board accountability to chairs. Oh god - would that send a rocket up the darker passages of the ASF! Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Dec 21, 2004, at 2:02 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: Authority without accountability? I'm could imagine why you and other members of the board feel comfortable with this. Make a chair accountable to the committee and the next thing you know will be board accountability to chairs. Oh god - would that send a rocket up the darker passages of the ASF! I realize that this is little more than a filibuster, and I probably should be smacked for feeding *this* troll, but I'm a board member, I voted for pushing Avalon over the side, and wonder why you believe that we could invert the oversight structure? Would the membership then be accountable to the board? We are structured to provide demonstrable oversight of the organization on behalf of the membership. We are accountable to the membership. We are elected by the membership, and can be thrown out, singly or en masse, by the membership. To that end, the board is charged with establishing PMCs, which are managed by an officer of the corporation, the PMC Chair. This person has the right to make decisions on behalf of the corporation (being an officer) that he or she considers to be in the best interest of the corporation. Where's the problem? geir (For the record, I support the actions of the board in this matter, and specifically, Greg's explanation of how things work...) -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 20:13 To: community@apache.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed On Dec 21, 2004, at 2:02 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: Authority without accountability? I'm could imagine why you and other members of the board feel comfortable with this. Make a chair accountable to the committee and the next thing you know will be board accountability to chairs. Oh god - would that send a rocket up the darker passages of the ASF! I realize that this is little more than a filibuster, and I probably should be smacked for feeding *this* troll *smack* Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: No policy adopted by a project can supercede the policies of the ASF. Any that do are null and void, or, at best, advisory only. Then clearly you have been negligent in your responsibility towards the Avalon community. No more than, say, the federal government is to citizens of a state when that state passes laws that encroach on federal authority. I.e., not at all. Things stand until they're tested. Bravo, Stephen; you've now competely and utterly convinced me that you're an accomplished troll. It's evidently impossible to hold a reasoned discussion with you. Apparently you're not the least bit interested in Truth; all you're interested in is Being Right. Or so it seems to me. Until you demonstrate that you can at least attempt dispassion and objectivity, I don't intend to waste any more of my time responding to your trolls. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQch3t5rNPMCpn3XdAQHDBwP9HYWo/pIr7dR4snGdjdykQLQxSN3ckKU7 5PjkhVerfI9kaCNmQrQT4s68W2G3EYhnOBtl1P8CBORXoKN0n7t+XZiK8uZgL1Jj twNWT2yi9JYyRf7G864dUkmBcHB7df804X6plAr8wBZEgz/Wl/vttJTKm5uUDrKH OY/FD7+8pao= =UPvh -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I realize that this is little more than a filibuster, and I probably should be smacked for feeding *this* troll *smack* Stephen. Excellent, Geir! Reponding to Stephen, you 'should be smacked for feeding the troll.' Stephen himself smacked you. Ergo, Stephen evidently agrees that you're feeding a troll, and, since you were reponding to him, he's the one trolling. ROTFLMAO! grin - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQch4zprNPMCpn3XdAQFU2AQAge0bLCMS6ScqzIIHzRUrhOKnFEfhTXYd WOC/axZyODxMDQYET6nYwZqE5hu8sGH5DOwyk5pIADPd6oC9YjeAn8i64NnWMAtD CisVLQhe47cnR3yFIpzcaERhIHOGIKkh7lvwWapNSIPgkjmDz6bomdwQvSgSRjdj 7DMlvYpa1J8= =qDFJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 20:22 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: No policy adopted by a project can supercede the policies of the ASF. Any that do are null and void, or, at best, advisory only. Then clearly you have been negligent in your responsibility towards the Avalon community. No more than, say, the federal government is to citizens of a state when that state passes laws that encroach on federal authority. I.e., not at all. Things stand until they're tested. Bravo, Stephen; you've now competely and utterly convinced me that you're an accomplished troll. It's evidently impossible to hold a reasoned discussion with you. Apparently you're not the least bit interested in Truth; all you're interested in is Being Right. Or so it seems to me. Until you demonstrate that you can at least attempt dispassion and objectivity, I don't intend to waste any more of my time responding to your trolls. Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Clearly you are not prepared, willing or able to address this. You decision to abstain from further discussion within this context is an appropriate move and I commend and applaud this decision. Stephen. - -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQch3t5rNPMCpn3XdAQHDBwP9HYWo/pIr7dR4snGdjdykQLQxSN3ckKU7 5PjkhVerfI9kaCNmQrQT4s68W2G3EYhnOBtl1P8CBORXoKN0n7t+XZiK8uZgL1Jj twNWT2yi9JYyRf7G864dUkmBcHB7df804X6plAr8wBZEgz/Wl/vttJTKm5uUDrKH OY/FD7+8pao= =UPvh -END PGP SIGNATURE- - 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]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 20:22 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: No policy adopted by a project can supercede the policies of the ASF. Any that do are null and void, or, at best, advisory only. Then clearly you have been negligent in your responsibility towards the Avalon community. No more than, say, the federal government is to citizens of a state when that state passes laws that encroach on federal authority. I.e., not at all. Things stand until they're tested. Bravo, Stephen; you've now competely and utterly convinced me that you're an accomplished troll. It's evidently impossible to hold a reasoned discussion with you. Apparently you're not the least bit interested in Truth; all you're interested in is Being Right. Or so it seems to me. Until you demonstrate that you can at least attempt dispassion and objectivity, I don't intend to waste any more of my time responding to your trolls. Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Clearly you are not prepared, willing or able to address this. You decision to abstain from further discussion within this context is an appropriate move and I commend and applaud this decision. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html The Jini technology is going Open Source and I think that is great, and even though I tried hard, it will not be under a ASL2.0 license, most likely the MIT license. Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent, SO the GPL compatibility had higher value than the patent right issue. Now, hasn't their been licensing disputes from (L)GPL camps, IIRC JBoss?? Where they were accusing the ASF of breach of licensing. Can't ASF pay back with the same coins, referring to their own authority (FSF) about that the licensing is incompatible... So, Mr Fleury, please drop the following from your distribution (incl non-apache); * log4j * tomcat * jetty * beanshell * jasper * hsqldb * mx4j and on and on and on... In my opinion (and people here knows I'm the kind who confronts, that's no secret) throw that at JBoss + FSF and see the reaction. Nice Christmas present. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Clearly you are not prepared, willing or able to address this. You decision to abstain from further discussion within this context is an appropriate move and I commend and applaud this decision. Stephen. Stephen, As one of the usually-silent members of the ASF, I take exception to what you have said in most of this thread. If there is anything wrong with the policies and procedures of the ASF, it is that Avalon was not shut down in 2001 or before. The board tried and tried and tried to stay out of the problems, hoping that the Avalon PMC would self-correct. This did not happen. Avalon was shut down. IMHO, it should have happened long before you became a major player in Avalon. Avalon has historically forgot about the 'users' part of the community, and that is something that I am not willing to let continue. I fully support the decisions made by the Avalon PMC to shut the project down. I find it a bit ironic that a 'perfect framework' project takes on a named based on a mythically perfect community, and the community is anything but. I would 'commend and applaud' your acceptance that there is an equal and opposite viewpoint to yours on this issue. I also believe that the multiple opinions out there cannot be reconciled. I am willing to let it go at that, as there is no clear direction forward, since forward has a dozen meanings in this context. So why don't we drop it? Scott Sanders - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Stephen McConnell wrote: Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Clearly you are not prepared, willing or able to address this. You decision to abstain from further discussion within this context is an appropriate move and I commend and applaud this decision. consent by attrition -- Serge Knystautas Lokitech software . strategy . design http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html The Jini technology is going Open Source and I think that is great, and even though I tried hard, it will not be under a ASL2.0 license, most likely the MIT license. I always thought the MIT licence was just the same as the BSD 1.1 licence. The GNU page lists a couple under that name (X11 License and Expat License). It'd be interesting to know why the MIT licence in particular is desired, I thought it was quite out of fashion nowadays. Now, hasn't their been licensing disputes from (L)GPL camps, IIRC JBoss?? Where they were accusing the ASF of breach of licensing. Can't ASF pay back with the same coins, referring to their own authority (FSF) about that the licensing is incompatible... From our point of view, ASL licenced code may be used in such products, so whether the FSF might have an issue or not with them is not in our realm of interest. I'm also pretty sure that we're not looking for pay back with the same coins. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On 21 Dec 2004, at 19:52, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: snip Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent, SO the GPL compatibility had higher value than the patent right issue. in europe at least, it's very likely that this won't really matter. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. any company wanted to maliciously damage an open source project would only have to target individual european release managers using the most pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe and (against this particular patent threat) neither the GPL nor the ASL could offer any protection at all. IMO the chilling effect of only one open source release manager facing a long prison sentence together with total sequestration of assets would be tremendous. happy christmas, one and all! - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 03:54, Scott Sanders wrote: If there is anything wrong with the policies and procedures of the ASF, it is that Avalon was not shut down in 2001 or before. I have spent most of the evening reading mails pre-Avalon TLP and especially the period around the TLP was formed, and I must agree the Scott. It was infected way back. I would 'commend and applaud' your acceptance that there is an equal and opposite viewpoint to yours on this issue. That has been identified and is acknowledged. I am now asking the question that there is a disparity between the way Greg explains how it works and the way projects operates. I have for instance brought up the PMC ByLaws issue, which doesn't exist but many projects have. I also believe that the multiple opinions out there cannot be reconciled. I am willing to let it go at that, as there is no clear direction forward, since forward has a dozen meanings in this context. So why don't we drop it? I have dropped Avalon out of the picture, that is history. I learned that being a member of the PMC is not necessarily what you think it is. Why not make the roles clear? Why not make sure that PMCs who has ByLaws, take those down and replace with Operational Procedures and Practices, which accurately describes the chain of command that *are* in place at project level, but barely mentioned anywhere? Why not make sure that no more TLPs are created with a boiler text, speaking of these project bylaws? If everyone thinks this is at all not necessary, then fine do nothing about it, let the descrepancy continue to exist, and I'll predict similar problems sooner, rather than later, in the future. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Stephen McConnell wrote: Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Rather, you are not willing to see that despite the ASF's utopian ideals, we recognize in our legal construct that things may not always have a utopian existence, and we provide for handling such (happily uncommon) cases. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??
On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 14:15, robert burrell donkin dijo: On 21 Dec 2004, at 19:52, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: snip Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent, SO the GPL compatibility had higher value than the patent right issue. in europe at least, it's very likely that this won't really matter. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. any company wanted to maliciously damage an open source project would only have to target individual european release managers using the most pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe and (against this particular patent threat) neither the GPL nor the ASL could offer any protection at all. IMO the chilling effect of only one open source release manager facing a long prison sentence together with total sequestration of assets would be tremendous. As a workaround we can give release manager roles to people in countries where this problems does not exists at all. ;-) happy christmas, one and all! +1 Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Clearly you are not prepared, willing or able to address this. You decision to abstain from further discussion within this context is an appropriate move and I commend and applaud this decision. Last message on this: None of the above is clear. You are guilty out of your own mouth/keyboard of ascribing to others -- in this case me -- the motivations you want to believe they have. Your paragraph above demonstrates yet again that you will twist anything you can to support your position. By refraining from trying to deal with you further I am in no way suggesting that I believe you to be correct. Disengaging from a debate does not equate to giving up and accepting the other side's argument. And to specifically and explicitly give the lie to your assertions above, Stephen, I will gladly discuss any of the named issues with anyone capable of doing so reasonably. I just no longer consider that to include you. I am not 'abstaining from further discussion' on them -- I am abstaining from attempting to discuss them with *you*. So go ahead and find someone else who supports your position, and can participate in reasonable discussion, and get that person to engage me on those topics right here on this list. Go ahead and feed that person lines behind the scenes if you like, to make sure that you feel you're being represented. But don't bother trying to represent yourself any more, at least not to me -- you have reduced your own credibility to less than zero in my opinion through your choice of tactics. - -- #kenP-(} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQciNtJrNPMCpn3XdAQG7LQP9FZ6LRQNv3kd/Bj/1S9ilsDgoykkoFnpD +GNxdjgGilmAvUkhjscKM9/vr4SCczE0Dfbz69MEjKg8k5BQ9NdYl4z+N9iTyyJn A/zSHpbNIS8Ok3nNslo/V12TR67T7xBDNKP40gmiRaYQITjDC+0boniAYEMa4sYU GUnRYwEsTIE= =3ywN -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent I'd be interested in any detailed constructions as to how such would happen. As we are constantly debugging our licenses. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. I fail to see how the current proposed changes would make any material change in that respect for say, the netherlands, italy or germany. pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe That is exactly what we are here for. And I can think of many ways to help here. And we contineously try to improve this. Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when - but the Apache Sofware Foundation. There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes out is an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers with a proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As long as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license thenwe can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them. Sure - the ASF itself and its Directors may end up in the hot seat - but that is exactly what we are here for ;-) Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On 21.12.2004, at 21:15, robert burrell donkin wrote: by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. any company wanted to maliciously damage an open source project would only have to target individual european release managers using the most pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe and (against this particular patent threat) neither the GPL nor the ASL could offer any protection at all. IMO the chilling effect of only one open source release manager facing a long prison sentence together with total sequestration of assets would be tremendous. ...yeah, we already got our prisoner suits... :) http://www.schlitt.info/applications/gallery/linuxtag_2004_day1/abn http://www.schlitt.info/applications/gallery/linuxtag_2004_day2/abr http://www.schlitt.info/applications/gallery/linuxtag_2004_day2/acw Cheers, Erik Honestly, isn't the release manager protected in some way? Distributions are basically released by the ASF (as a legal entity) not the release manager himself and furthermore the PMC has to vote on a release; the RM is only the one doing the gruntwork, so I'd guess we're fine here. This doesn't apply to any other private or OSS engagements of course... happy christmas, one and all! - robert smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 21:55 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Clearly you are not prepared, willing or able to address this. You decision to abstain from further discussion within this context is an appropriate move and I commend and applaud this decision. Last message on this: None of the above is clear. You are guilty out of your own mouth/keyboard of ascribing to others -- in this case me -- the motivations you want to believe they have. Your paragraph above demonstrates yet again that you will twist anything you can to support your position. By refraining from trying to deal with you further I am in no way suggesting that I believe you to be correct. Disengaging from a debate does not equate to giving up and accepting the other side's argument. And to specifically and explicitly give the lie to your assertions above, Stephen, I will gladly discuss any of the named issues with anyone capable of doing so reasonably. I just no longer consider that to include you. I am not 'abstaining from further discussion' on them -- I am abstaining from attempting to discuss them with *you*. So go ahead and find someone else who supports your position, and can participate in reasonable discussion, and get that person to engage me on those topics right here on this list. Go ahead and feed that person lines behind the scenes if you like, to make sure that you feel you're being represented. But don't bother trying to represent yourself any more, at least not to me -- you have reduced your own credibility to less than zero in my opinion through your choice of tactics. Sooner of later you have to make a choice. Are you a part of the pile or are your going to do something about the pile. It appears that you have made that decision. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
-Original Message- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 21:59 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ?? On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent I'd be interested in any detailed constructions as to how such would happen. As we are constantly debugging our licenses. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. I fail to see how the current proposed changes would make any material change in that respect for say, the netherlands, italy or germany. pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe That is exactly what we are here for. And I can think of many ways to help here. And we contineously try to improve this. Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when - but the Apache Sofware Foundation. There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes out is an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers with a proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As long as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license thenwe can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them. Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes out is an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers with a proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As long as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license thenwe can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them. Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Stephen. Why do you say things like this? Do you fail to understand this is the primary reason for the establishment of the ASF. Scott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??
On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 15:17, Stephen McConnell dijo: Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Stephen. Why not Stephen? In all stuff related to the ASF I guess the answer is a clear yes as whatever other ASF committer or member. Why you doubt it? AFAIK there is no a clausule telling: All committers or members, except Stephen ;-) I truly believe we can have diferences including diferent POVs and hard discussions this is normal in every community, even inside families. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 04:59, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when - but the Apache Sofware Foundation. I don't claim to know anything about the European sw patent issue, but assuming that Robert is fairly well informed, the situation would become; ASF can not issue a statement superceding the law, esp not criminal law, no matter how much it wants to take blame in the criminal act. Worst thing that could happen would be that both are charged, and if found guilty ASF slapped with a hefty fine, which it can't pay, which may lead to confiscation of the physical assets in Europe and possibly restriction on how it is allowed to do business there. I thought that common sense would finally come to the whole sw patent issue in europe, and didn't bother to keep abreast of the development. Scary. Indeed. I feel for you guys. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 05:23, Scott Sanders wrote: On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Why do you say things like this? Do you fail to understand this is the primary reason for the establishment of the ASF. He is in a bad mood. He is leaving Europe shortly (pre-empting the Patent issue) and will be missing the food, cigars and cafes he enjoyed in Paris over the last few years. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
Am Dienstag, den 21.12.2004, 20:15 + schrieb robert burrell donkin: in europe at least, it's very likely that this won't really matter. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. ... I don't think so. The winds are changing and blowing into the faces of those who are in favour of software patents. Unfortunately the European Council is still amongs those - in contrary to most European parliaments. I do hope that the council will be unable to enforce its directive on software patents: As of today they suffered a heavy defeat when they wanted to silently pass the directive without discussion in the Agriculture and Fisheries (!) configuration: Poland's representative refused to wave through the council's directive without discussion. This caused the case to be taken off from the agenda. However, other ministers in the council did not have that courage and would have passed the guideline because they simply did not want to blame the Netherlands which have the council's presidentship at present. Now the blame is on themselves. Everything is open again: Next year Luxembourg will have the presidentship, and one might wonder whether they want to carry on with this stuff. The change in presidentship might offer a change for the European goverments to start listening to their parliaments and abandon any further tries to enforce software patents. Even if the European Council manages to pass the directive there is still the European Parliament which has already proven to be against software patents and could cancel the directive. All in all, I am quite optimistic for 2005. Best regards Rainer Klute Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH Dipl.-Inform. Rainer Klute E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Körner Grund 24 Telefon: +49 172 2324824 D-44143 Dortmund Telefax: +49 231 5349423 Softwarepatente verhindern: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Dec 21, 2004, at 4:23 PM, Scott Sanders wrote: On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Stephen. Why do you say things like this? Do you fail to understand this is the primary reason for the establishment of the ASF. s/Do// -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 03:52 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: Now, hasn't their been licensing disputes from (L)GPL camps, IIRC JBoss?? Where they were accusing the ASF of breach of licensing. Can't ASF pay back with the same coins, referring to their own authority (FSF) about that the licensing is incompatible... So, Mr Fleury, please drop the following from your distribution (incl non-apache); * log4j * tomcat * jetty * beanshell * jasper * hsqldb * mx4j and on and on and on... It's not for us to decide for projectx whether they deem ASF-2.0 licensed software to be incompatible with their (L)GPL'ed code or not. The people that release ASF 2.0 licensed software don't need to care about this, because the problem is not the ASF 2.0 license but another (in this case (L)GPL) which states that the result must be licensed again under this other license (in this case (L)GPL. In other words: The ASF IMHO does not need to care. Because the ASF 2.0 is not violated. In my opinion (and people here knows I'm the kind who confronts, that's no secret) throw that at JBoss + FSF and see the reaction. Nice Christmas present. If this gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over, go ahead and tell them... Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development What is more important to you... [ ] Product Security or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support -- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 15:28 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote: On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 15:17, Stephen McConnell dijo: AFAIK there is no a clausule telling: All committers or members, except Stephen ;-) You don't seem to have access to the purple files... Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development What is more important to you... [ ] Product Security or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support -- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??
On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 17:12, Henning Schmiedehausen dijo: On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 15:28 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote: On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 15:17, Stephen McConnell dijo: AFAIK there is no a clausule telling: All committers or members, except Stephen ;-) You don't seem to have access to the purple files... Please! we don't need that! ;-) Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
