You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jon Travis <jt...@covalent.net> on 2002/09/11 22:55:35 UTC
E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Jeff,
I cc'd the dev@ lists, since the original proposition was made there,
and the public following the discussion should know the resolution.
My comments at the end.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0000, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> As you well know, it has taken a while to reach a conclusion on the
> donation of the El-Kabong codebase. Even after determining that it
> was a contribution worthy of a home in the ASF, it was hard to
> determine where exactly it should be placed. Eventually, the majority
> of the APR Project Management Committee (PMC) voted for it to be
> placed in apr-util/html.
>
> Another major concern was with granting you commit privileges to the
> code once it was transferred to an ASF CVS repository. Unfortunately,
> we do not feel comfortable with granting you commit privileges at the
> present time. We are happy for you to submit patches and we will make
> a special effort to handle them in an expeditious manner. We hope
> that we will eventually be able to grant you commit privileges, but
> before that happens we need a stronger indication of your respect for
> the community and its processes. Concerns were expressed about your
> ultimatum for accepting El-Kabong within a certain timeframe. We feel
> that any time required initially for considering the donation and where
> to place it were important for its long-term success as part of the ASF,
> and that your ultimatum was another indication of a lack of respect or
> understanding for the community. We need to have a more constructive
> relationship with you over a period of time before we can grant you
> commit access.
>
> While we believe that the El-Kabong codebase is a valuable contribution
> that we would like to pick up, we also recognize the possibility that
> you may have a decreased incentive to work on it further if you are
> initially denied commit access to the repository when it moves to the
> ASF. If this is the case, we understand that it may be best for the
> codebase to live elsewhere if it would be harmed by a lack of
> contributions from its original author, and we look to you for further
> guidance on this issue.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> the APR PMC
>
> ---
> Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
I've decided to host the project elsewhere. It would be extremely
frustrating to require you, the ASF, to review code I'm patching
to code I initially wrote, given that I know that code better than
anyone. Moreover, I would have no review privileges for code being
committed to e-k, which seems like very irresponsible code management.
As originally stated, I would be the initial maintainer of the code.
Since this is not the case, it seems that the ASF has accepted part
of the deal, and discarded the rest.
I'd ask that you not include e-k, since we haven't come to a satisfactory
conclusion.
-- Jon
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Jon Travis <jt...@covalent.net>.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 04:25:00PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:55:35PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
<Snip>
> > I've decided to host the project elsewhere. It would be extremely
> > frustrating to require you, the ASF, to review code I'm patching
> > to code I initially wrote, given that I know that code better than
> > anyone. Moreover, I would have no review privileges for code being
> > committed to e-k, which seems like very irresponsible code management.
>
> As Jeff indicated, we had hoped that you would want to work *with* us on
> moving E-K forward. Your participation on the APR development list,
> reviewing of commits, suggesting new directions, and providing patches to
> improve the system are/were quite welcome.
>
> Your comment about "host the project elsewhere" is interesting. We never
> viewed this as a way for you to host code at the ASF. Instead, this was
> about two things:
>
> 1) a donation of code from a company (Covalent)
> 2) providing an individual (Jon Travis) with commit access to apr-util
#1 is correct. #2 is not -- rather it was about Jon Travis having
maintainer privileges to wherever it ended up (not necessarily apr-util).
I've repeatedly stated that moving stuff to a different project was fine.
Read over the emails -- it's all there in whatever colors your mail
reader renders it.. ;-)
> The two are separable items with different issues and requirements.
>
> > As originally stated, I would be the initial maintainer of the code.
> > Since this is not the case, it seems that the ASF has accepted part
> > of the deal, and discarded the rest.
>
> Again, the two issues are separate. It is unfortunate that the ASF did not
> communicate this critical piece of information to you, though. A lot of
> headache may have been avoided if we simply said, "A code donation does not
> imply commit access. Each will be evaluated on their own merits."
That's fine -- but in this case I said that I would be the initial
maintainer. If you didn't want the one, you shouldn't have taken the
other.
> > I'd ask that you not include e-k, since we haven't come to a satisfactory
> > conclusion.
>
> We have already executed the paperwork with Covalent for the software grant.
This I know -- I filled it all out.. ;-)
> I don't have a particular read on what the PMC is going to choose to do with
> the code -- whether it will go into apr-util/html/, or whether will be
> skipped. We do have the choice, but I'm not sure which will be chosen.
>
You certainly do, and I hope you act responsibly in your decision.
-- Jon
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Jon Travis <jt...@covalent.net>.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 04:25:00PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:55:35PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
<Snip>
> > I've decided to host the project elsewhere. It would be extremely
> > frustrating to require you, the ASF, to review code I'm patching
> > to code I initially wrote, given that I know that code better than
> > anyone. Moreover, I would have no review privileges for code being
> > committed to e-k, which seems like very irresponsible code management.
>
> As Jeff indicated, we had hoped that you would want to work *with* us on
> moving E-K forward. Your participation on the APR development list,
> reviewing of commits, suggesting new directions, and providing patches to
> improve the system are/were quite welcome.
>
> Your comment about "host the project elsewhere" is interesting. We never
> viewed this as a way for you to host code at the ASF. Instead, this was
> about two things:
>
> 1) a donation of code from a company (Covalent)
> 2) providing an individual (Jon Travis) with commit access to apr-util
#1 is correct. #2 is not -- rather it was about Jon Travis having
maintainer privileges to wherever it ended up (not necessarily apr-util).
I've repeatedly stated that moving stuff to a different project was fine.
Read over the emails -- it's all there in whatever colors your mail
reader renders it.. ;-)
> The two are separable items with different issues and requirements.
>
> > As originally stated, I would be the initial maintainer of the code.
> > Since this is not the case, it seems that the ASF has accepted part
> > of the deal, and discarded the rest.
>
> Again, the two issues are separate. It is unfortunate that the ASF did not
> communicate this critical piece of information to you, though. A lot of
> headache may have been avoided if we simply said, "A code donation does not
> imply commit access. Each will be evaluated on their own merits."
That's fine -- but in this case I said that I would be the initial
maintainer. If you didn't want the one, you shouldn't have taken the
other.
> > I'd ask that you not include e-k, since we haven't come to a satisfactory
> > conclusion.
>
> We have already executed the paperwork with Covalent for the software grant.
This I know -- I filled it all out.. ;-)
> I don't have a particular read on what the PMC is going to choose to do with
> the code -- whether it will go into apr-util/html/, or whether will be
> skipped. We do have the choice, but I'm not sure which will be chosen.
>
You certainly do, and I hope you act responsibly in your decision.
-- Jon
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:55:35PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I cc'd the dev@ lists, since the original proposition was made there,
> and the public following the discussion should know the resolution.
Jon,
Most people would consider it improper to forward personal email to a public
forum. Obviously, you can choose to send your response anywhere you'd like,
but to incorporate another's email without permission is usually "bad form."
>... [ Jeff's email trimmed ] ...
>
> I've decided to host the project elsewhere. It would be extremely
> frustrating to require you, the ASF, to review code I'm patching
> to code I initially wrote, given that I know that code better than
> anyone. Moreover, I would have no review privileges for code being
> committed to e-k, which seems like very irresponsible code management.
As Jeff indicated, we had hoped that you would want to work *with* us on
moving E-K forward. Your participation on the APR development list,
reviewing of commits, suggesting new directions, and providing patches to
improve the system are/were quite welcome.
Your comment about "host the project elsewhere" is interesting. We never
viewed this as a way for you to host code at the ASF. Instead, this was
about two things:
1) a donation of code from a company (Covalent)
2) providing an individual (Jon Travis) with commit access to apr-util
The two are separable items with different issues and requirements.
> As originally stated, I would be the initial maintainer of the code.
> Since this is not the case, it seems that the ASF has accepted part
> of the deal, and discarded the rest.
Again, the two issues are separate. It is unfortunate that the ASF did not
communicate this critical piece of information to you, though. A lot of
headache may have been avoided if we simply said, "A code donation does not
imply commit access. Each will be evaluated on their own merits."
> I'd ask that you not include e-k, since we haven't come to a satisfactory
> conclusion.
We have already executed the paperwork with Covalent for the software grant.
I don't have a particular read on what the PMC is going to choose to do with
the code -- whether it will go into apr-util/html/, or whether will be
skipped. We do have the choice, but I'm not sure which will be chosen.
I hope that helps to clarify the situation.
Regards,
Greg Stein
Chairman, Apache Software Foundation
Re: ASF policy statements
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:54:10AM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote:
>...
> It would be nice if the ASF policies regarding code donations (be it a
> 2-line patch or a whole suite such as E-K) were posted publicly. The
> policy page can cover the process for accepting, privelages (if any) that
> may result, as well as the general policy on being granted developer
> commit access to the repository.
Hehe... imagine that. We're talking about this exact thing right now :-)
In fact, I'm hoping that we nail down some kind of mechanism for this since
the ASF Board is meeting next Wednesday. I hope to discuss it there and come
out of the meeting with forward motion on a better way to handle future code
donations.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Harrie Hazewinkel <ha...@lisanza.net>.
Hi,
Comment inline on 2 emails.
--On Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:55 PM -0700 Jon Travis
<jt...@covalent.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0000, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> While we believe that the El-Kabong codebase is a valuable contribution
>> that we would like to pick up, we also recognize the possibility that
>> you may have a decreased incentive to work on it further if you are
>> initially denied commit access to the repository when it moves to the
>> ASF. If this is the case, we understand that it may be best for the
>> codebase to live elsewhere if it would be harmed by a lack of
>> contributions from its original author, and we look to you for further
>> guidance on this issue.
Does the ASF relaize what a situation this creates?? IMHO, it will mean
that anyone in the future who does not already have commit access will
not donate a code component. That is a situation which is not beneficial
for the ASF, unless they do not want any extra code.
Accepting code and denying the donater access to it, the idea alone.
Now maybe some solution. However, I am not that much of an expert
in CVS. Can Jon not get commit access in the the apr/html/el-kabong
section only?? I guess, this can be done with the CVSROOT/avail file.
--On Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:42 PM -0700 Greg Stein
<gs...@lyra.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:52:56PM -0400, John K. Sterling wrote:
>
>> I am generally a blind supporter of the apache group - I have a lot of
>> respect for many members and contributors. But I am surprised by the
>> group in this case. Jon Travis has been submitting critical patches
>> for a few years (I believe it was one of his patches that provided MPM
>> querying a couple of years ago). He has been involved far longer, and
>> has far better public qualifications than many of the folks who already
>> have commit access. To look at a this piece of code (on top of all of
>> the apache/apr submissions over the years) and say he hasn't proven
>> himself is a ridiculous thing to say..... is this all over the title
>> of a proposed apachecon talk (why apache sukks)? or some other
>> personal vendettas?
>
> Your points about Jon's contributions are all absolutely true. I agree.
> But commit access is not a simple, "wow. great code. give him commit
> privs."
Therefore, can someone of the ASF
>
> Suffice it to say that this issue is quite a bit more complex than that,
> thus the reason it took a while to reach some kind of conclusion. There
> are way too many people involved (between the httpd and apr PMCs and the
> board) for this to be about any individual's issues. It is more than that
> (internal issues, and in regards to E-K and Jon), and it would be
> inappropriate for a public discussion, which is why it wasn't.
>
> The ASF has a responsibility towards the community. And a lot of us feel
> very strongly about that. However, that also means there are different
> views on how to express and act on that responsibility. Sometimes, things
> just aren't so easy...
Does this then also apply for the ASF members themselves??
Harrie
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Harrie Hazewinkel <ha...@lisanza.net>.
Hi,
Comment inline on 2 emails.
--On Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:55 PM -0700 Jon Travis
<jt...@covalent.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0000, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> While we believe that the El-Kabong codebase is a valuable contribution
>> that we would like to pick up, we also recognize the possibility that
>> you may have a decreased incentive to work on it further if you are
>> initially denied commit access to the repository when it moves to the
>> ASF. If this is the case, we understand that it may be best for the
>> codebase to live elsewhere if it would be harmed by a lack of
>> contributions from its original author, and we look to you for further
>> guidance on this issue.
Does the ASF relaize what a situation this creates?? IMHO, it will mean
that anyone in the future who does not already have commit access will
not donate a code component. That is a situation which is not beneficial
for the ASF, unless they do not want any extra code.
Accepting code and denying the donater access to it, the idea alone.
Now maybe some solution. However, I am not that much of an expert
in CVS. Can Jon not get commit access in the the apr/html/el-kabong
section only?? I guess, this can be done with the CVSROOT/avail file.
--On Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:42 PM -0700 Greg Stein
<gs...@lyra.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:52:56PM -0400, John K. Sterling wrote:
>
>> I am generally a blind supporter of the apache group - I have a lot of
>> respect for many members and contributors. But I am surprised by the
>> group in this case. Jon Travis has been submitting critical patches
>> for a few years (I believe it was one of his patches that provided MPM
>> querying a couple of years ago). He has been involved far longer, and
>> has far better public qualifications than many of the folks who already
>> have commit access. To look at a this piece of code (on top of all of
>> the apache/apr submissions over the years) and say he hasn't proven
>> himself is a ridiculous thing to say..... is this all over the title
>> of a proposed apachecon talk (why apache sukks)? or some other
>> personal vendettas?
>
> Your points about Jon's contributions are all absolutely true. I agree.
> But commit access is not a simple, "wow. great code. give him commit
> privs."
Therefore, can someone of the ASF
>
> Suffice it to say that this issue is quite a bit more complex than that,
> thus the reason it took a while to reach some kind of conclusion. There
> are way too many people involved (between the httpd and apr PMCs and the
> board) for this to be about any individual's issues. It is more than that
> (internal issues, and in regards to E-K and Jon), and it would be
> inappropriate for a public discussion, which is why it wasn't.
>
> The ASF has a responsibility towards the community. And a lot of us feel
> very strongly about that. However, that also means there are different
> views on how to express and act on that responsibility. Sometimes, things
> just aren't so easy...
Does this then also apply for the ASF members themselves??
Harrie
ASF policy statements (was: E-K thread)
Posted by Dale Ghent <da...@elemental.org>.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
| Your points about Jon's contributions are all absolutely true. I agree. But
| commit access is not a simple, "wow. great code. give him commit privs."
|
| Suffice it to say that this issue is quite a bit more complex than that,
| thus the reason it took a while to reach some kind of conclusion. There are
| way too many people involved (between the httpd and apr PMCs and the board)
| for this to be about any individual's issues. It is more than that (internal
| issues, and in regards to E-K and Jon), and it would be inappropriate for a
| public discussion, which is why it wasn't.
|
| The ASF has a responsibility towards the community. And a lot of us feel
| very strongly about that. However, that also means there are different views
| on how to express and act on that responsibility. Sometimes, things just
| aren't so easy...
It would be nice if the ASF policies regarding code donations (be it a
2-line patch or a whole suite such as E-K) were posted publicly. The
policy page can cover the process for accepting, privelages (if any) that
may result, as well as the general policy on being granted developer
commit access to the repository.
>From reading the responses to this whole thread, it appears as if the ASF
stance has taken many by suprise and caused fustration. If the ASF made it
publicly known through stated policies (and long-winded responses in a
email thread don't count) such predicaments can be avoided in the future.
The below URLs would be good places to add this obviously important info
to:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/
/dale
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:52:56PM -0400, John K. Sterling wrote:
>...
> to Rasmus' point - maybe the group should have just said 'no' instead
> of trying to justify it (and not QUITE to greg's point, IMHO all
> emails from the apache group that declare a decision should be to a
> public list)..
A simple "no" would be a disservice. It would just generate a "why?", and
we'd be back to the same spot. Further, the email to Jon was sent privately
because we felt that it *was* private. It dealt with the code donation from
Covalent, and it dealt with Jon's commit privileges. The latter part was
potentially a sensitive issue, so we didn't feel it was appropriate for
posting to a public forum without talking to Jon first. That is a simple,
common courtesy.
[ Jon's forwarding obviously meant he was fine with it, but that does not
negate our initial obligation ]
> I am generally a blind supporter of the apache group - I have a lot of
> respect for many members and contributors. But I am surprised by the
> group in this case. Jon Travis has been submitting critical patches
> for a few years (I believe it was one of his patches that provided MPM
> querying a couple of years ago). He has been involved far longer, and
> has far better public qualifications than many of the folks who already
> have commit access. To look at a this piece of code (on top of all of
> the apache/apr submissions over the years) and say he hasn't proven
> himself is a ridiculous thing to say..... is this all over the title
> of a proposed apachecon talk (why apache sukks)? or some other
> personal vendettas?
Your points about Jon's contributions are all absolutely true. I agree. But
commit access is not a simple, "wow. great code. give him commit privs."
Suffice it to say that this issue is quite a bit more complex than that,
thus the reason it took a while to reach some kind of conclusion. There are
way too many people involved (between the httpd and apr PMCs and the board)
for this to be about any individual's issues. It is more than that (internal
issues, and in regards to E-K and Jon), and it would be inappropriate for a
public discussion, which is why it wasn't.
The ASF has a responsibility towards the community. And a lot of us feel
very strongly about that. However, that also means there are different views
on how to express and act on that responsibility. Sometimes, things just
aren't so easy...
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:52:56PM -0400, John K. Sterling wrote:
>...
> to Rasmus' point - maybe the group should have just said 'no' instead
> of trying to justify it (and not QUITE to greg's point, IMHO all
> emails from the apache group that declare a decision should be to a
> public list)..
A simple "no" would be a disservice. It would just generate a "why?", and
we'd be back to the same spot. Further, the email to Jon was sent privately
because we felt that it *was* private. It dealt with the code donation from
Covalent, and it dealt with Jon's commit privileges. The latter part was
potentially a sensitive issue, so we didn't feel it was appropriate for
posting to a public forum without talking to Jon first. That is a simple,
common courtesy.
[ Jon's forwarding obviously meant he was fine with it, but that does not
negate our initial obligation ]
> I am generally a blind supporter of the apache group - I have a lot of
> respect for many members and contributors. But I am surprised by the
> group in this case. Jon Travis has been submitting critical patches
> for a few years (I believe it was one of his patches that provided MPM
> querying a couple of years ago). He has been involved far longer, and
> has far better public qualifications than many of the folks who already
> have commit access. To look at a this piece of code (on top of all of
> the apache/apr submissions over the years) and say he hasn't proven
> himself is a ridiculous thing to say..... is this all over the title
> of a proposed apachecon talk (why apache sukks)? or some other
> personal vendettas?
Your points about Jon's contributions are all absolutely true. I agree. But
commit access is not a simple, "wow. great code. give him commit privs."
Suffice it to say that this issue is quite a bit more complex than that,
thus the reason it took a while to reach some kind of conclusion. There are
way too many people involved (between the httpd and apr PMCs and the board)
for this to be about any individual's issues. It is more than that (internal
issues, and in regards to E-K and Jon), and it would be inappropriate for a
public discussion, which is why it wasn't.
The ASF has a responsibility towards the community. And a lot of us feel
very strongly about that. However, that also means there are different views
on how to express and act on that responsibility. Sometimes, things just
aren't so easy...
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:55:35PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I cc'd the dev@ lists, since the original proposition was made there,
> and the public following the discussion should know the resolution.
Jon,
Most people would consider it improper to forward personal email to a public
forum. Obviously, you can choose to send your response anywhere you'd like,
but to incorporate another's email without permission is usually "bad form."
>... [ Jeff's email trimmed ] ...
>
> I've decided to host the project elsewhere. It would be extremely
> frustrating to require you, the ASF, to review code I'm patching
> to code I initially wrote, given that I know that code better than
> anyone. Moreover, I would have no review privileges for code being
> committed to e-k, which seems like very irresponsible code management.
As Jeff indicated, we had hoped that you would want to work *with* us on
moving E-K forward. Your participation on the APR development list,
reviewing of commits, suggesting new directions, and providing patches to
improve the system are/were quite welcome.
Your comment about "host the project elsewhere" is interesting. We never
viewed this as a way for you to host code at the ASF. Instead, this was
about two things:
1) a donation of code from a company (Covalent)
2) providing an individual (Jon Travis) with commit access to apr-util
The two are separable items with different issues and requirements.
> As originally stated, I would be the initial maintainer of the code.
> Since this is not the case, it seems that the ASF has accepted part
> of the deal, and discarded the rest.
Again, the two issues are separate. It is unfortunate that the ASF did not
communicate this critical piece of information to you, though. A lot of
headache may have been avoided if we simply said, "A code donation does not
imply commit access. Each will be evaluated on their own merits."
> I'd ask that you not include e-k, since we haven't come to a satisfactory
> conclusion.
We have already executed the paperwork with Covalent for the software grant.
I don't have a particular read on what the PMC is going to choose to do with
the code -- whether it will go into apr-util/html/, or whether will be
skipped. We do have the choice, but I'm not sure which will be chosen.
I hope that helps to clarify the situation.
Regards,
Greg Stein
Chairman, Apache Software Foundation
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by "John K. Sterling" <jo...@sterls.com>.
On Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 04:55 PM, Jon Travis wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I cc'd the dev@ lists, since the original proposition was made there,
> and the public following the discussion should know the resolution.
>
> My comments at the end.
to Rasmus' point - maybe the group should have just said 'no' instead
of trying to justify it (and not QUITE to greg's point, IMHO all
emails from the apache group that declare a decision should be to a
public list)..
I am generally a blind supporter of the apache group - I have a lot of
respect for many members and contributors. But I am surprised by the
group in this case. Jon Travis has been submitting critical patches
for a few years (I believe it was one of his patches that provided MPM
querying a couple of years ago). He has been involved far longer, and
has far better public qualifications than many of the folks who already
have commit access. To look at a this piece of code (on top of all of
the apache/apr submissions over the years) and say he hasn't proven
himself is a ridiculous thing to say..... is this all over the title
of a proposed apachecon talk (why apache sukks)? or some other
personal vendettas?
just thought that needed to be said.
sterling
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org>.
> > While we believe that the El-Kabong codebase is a valuable contribution
> > that we would like to pick up, we also recognize the possibility that
> > you may have a decreased incentive to work on it further if you are
> > initially denied commit access to the repository when it moves to the
> > ASF. If this is the case, we understand that it may be best for the
> > codebase to live elsewhere if it would be harmed by a lack of
> > contributions from its original author, and we look to you for further
> > guidance on this issue.
I find this rather shitty. Obviously someone who donates code is going to
want to be able to work on it so this is the same as telling Jon to take a
hike. It would have been much more forthright and honest to just tell him
to take a hike.
-Rasmus
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org>.
> > While we believe that the El-Kabong codebase is a valuable contribution
> > that we would like to pick up, we also recognize the possibility that
> > you may have a decreased incentive to work on it further if you are
> > initially denied commit access to the repository when it moves to the
> > ASF. If this is the case, we understand that it may be best for the
> > codebase to live elsewhere if it would be harmed by a lack of
> > contributions from its original author, and we look to you for further
> > guidance on this issue.
I find this rather shitty. Obviously someone who donates code is going to
want to be able to work on it so this is the same as telling Jon to take a
hike. It would have been much more forthright and honest to just tell him
to take a hike.
-Rasmus
Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Posted by "John K. Sterling" <jo...@sterls.com>.
On Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 04:55 PM, Jon Travis wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I cc'd the dev@ lists, since the original proposition was made there,
> and the public following the discussion should know the resolution.
>
> My comments at the end.
to Rasmus' point - maybe the group should have just said 'no' instead
of trying to justify it (and not QUITE to greg's point, IMHO all
emails from the apache group that declare a decision should be to a
public list)..
I am generally a blind supporter of the apache group - I have a lot of
respect for many members and contributors. But I am surprised by the
group in this case. Jon Travis has been submitting critical patches
for a few years (I believe it was one of his patches that provided MPM
querying a couple of years ago). He has been involved far longer, and
has far better public qualifications than many of the folks who already
have commit access. To look at a this piece of code (on top of all of
the apache/apr submissions over the years) and say he hasn't proven
himself is a ridiculous thing to say..... is this all over the title
of a proposed apachecon talk (why apache sukks)? or some other
personal vendettas?
just thought that needed to be said.
sterling