Impasses and decision-making

[Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>]

Rich Bowen wrote:
> Ah. Then clearly we are at an impasse. "I think someone should" is quite simply not how things happen here. If you feel that this is crazier than normal, perhaps you've missed something. That is the definition of normal. We are, as I said, a do-ocracy. 

Perhaps we are at an impasse. Seems much like that to me too some days.

 

I vaguely remember that you *require* each Apache project to submit a quarterly report that almost nobody reads and that usually says the same thing each report. Would you like me to write those also?

 

Incubator and infrastructure committees are *required* to report monthly. Want me to write those and save everyone the bother?

 

I really hate it when board members pretend that The Apache Software Foundation is free for every Peter Pan to have fun in. I thought our corporate role was to provide professional support – including legally strong policies – for open source projects. And then let THEM do it themselves.

 

/Larry

 

From: Rich Bowen [mailto:rbowen@rcbowen.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 4:41 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Adoption of new Software and Document License

 


On Jun 6, 2015 7:31 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <ma...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote:
>
> Thanks, Joe.
>
> It would be even crazier than normal for ASF to ask me "to step up and do the work" that needs to be done. I can't even spell most of the Apache trademarks, much less understand what magic that software performs. If YOU don't do it, it won't get done.
>
> 

Ah. Then clearly we are at an impasse. "I think someone should" is quite simply not how things happen here. If you feel that this is crazier than normal, perhaps you've missed something. That is the definition of normal. We are, as I said, a do-ocracy. 

Re: Impasses and decision-making

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>...

> democracy. Someone besides me should object when a board member says to
> take my issues to a private Apache list where I am temporarily banned by
> the board from even posting and where the few board


You were not banned.

Your posts are merely subject to *moderation* to ensure your tone is
productive (in contrast to your past behavior/tone on the Foundation's
private mailing lists).

>...

-g

Re: Impasses and decision-making

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

If you wish to have policy changes, then, as Greg said:

 >>
submit a formal proposal to VP Legal Affairs.
The VP and his committee (which includes you!) haven't appeared to 
formally vote/discuss the adoption of any of your proposals. Since they 
haven't jumped on it already, it's your next move to try and get them 
adopted.
 >>

ie, nobody is telling you to "stop bothering them with policy changes." 
Rather, you were *encouraged* to take the next step. This is so far from 
"refuse to consider changing itself", as you seem to wish to believe.

If you wish to make documentation changed (ie, to document various legal 
and standards things to go with releases) you'd need to engage with the 
dev list of the particular project that needs these things documented. 
In every case, that is a public list.

If, for example, you feel that Apache Cordova has a patent issue that 
needs to be documented, you would engage with the dev@cordova.apache.org 
mailing list - a public mailing list - with the proposed change. (Not 
that I'm aware of a problem there - it's just the first project that 
came to mind.)

The comments in your email are perplexing, and make me wonder if you 
know how things work around here. Yes, foundation-level policy decisions 
happen at the foundation (board) level, and the board is elected by the 
membership. Nobody is challenging that that's a democratic process.

However, project-level decisions happen because someone steps up and 
does the work. So, again, if you want patents (or whatever) documented 
at the project level, someone needs to actually step up and do that. You 
keep saying that you're the one that's qualified to do it. I'm 
encouraging you to go ahead and do it. You are acting like this is 
somehow unreasonable. Yet that is how every single one of us here got 
involved in making things happen on Apache projects. It's unclear to me 
how this is a reasonable expectation for every person here, except for 
your august self.

You also appear to still not understand why you were banned from private 
lists. It's because you tend to behave yourself like a civilized, polite 
person when it's in the public record.

However, it continues to seem very unlikely to me that you actually need 
any of these things explained to you. I think, rather, that you're just 
trying to pick a fight because you thrive on controversy, and are 
looking for opportunities to demonstrate what evil, power-grubbing 
people the current cabal, I mean board, really are.

So, once again, I encourage you to read what is actually said above, 
without your filters of resentment. Greg is encouraging you to take your 
proposed policy changes to the next step of the process. I am 
encouraging you to take the specific things you'd like to see documented 
to the project dev lists where those changes would actually be made. ie, 
in each case, we're trying to encourage you to move forward with the 
things that you're talking about. If you could, for a moment, step back 
from vilifying people, and actually look at what's being communicated, 
we could all make some progress here.

I have a long-standing policy of not responding to email from you. Every 
time I break this policy, I regret it. I have this policy because, 
invariably, conversation with you leads to this kind of exchange where 
you question everyone's motives and say generally unproductive things 
about how everyone but you is wrong-headed and probably trying to 
undermine you. This is very, very tiresome. I respectfully ask you to 
quit it. It's boring. It's tired. It's old. It's pointless.

Just stop. Please. Indeed, the very first email that I ever sent you, 
years ago, was making exactly this same request. I have never stopped 
making this request. If you want to help move the Foundation along, 
great, step up and make it happen. If you just want to fling mud, please 
go away.


On 06/07/2015 03:53 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Colleagues and friends,
>
> After receiving two on-list responses from ASF board members (Rich Bowen, Greg Stein) and one from our president (Ross Gardler), I feel obliged to differ. All three said "we are a do-ocracy" and they told me to do what I want by myself and to stop bothering them with proposed policy changes. This is ludicrous.
>
> Actually we are a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation governed by our own Bylaws and by the laws of Delaware and the United States. We should groan loudly when officers of ASF declare we are not a democracy. Someone besides me should object when a board member says to take my issues to a private Apache list where I am temporarily banned by the board from even posting and where the few board participants there already disagree with me. I've been trying that for several years now and it has accomplished nothing but my being banned under the so-called CoC because the Peter Pan crew here wants to have fun.
>
> I've been an open source lawyer since before ASF was even incorporated. It saddens me to see this important institution refuse to consider changing itself to conform to the laws and FOSS licenses of today. Fortunately, ASF is a democracy and it elects its board and officers every year. There is hope.
>
> There is also great FOSS software here. Please stay with us while we try to evolve!
>
> /Larry


-- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

RE: Impasses and decision-making

[Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>]

Colleagues and friends,

After receiving two on-list responses from ASF board members (Rich Bowen, Greg Stein) and one from our president (Ross Gardler), I feel obliged to differ. All three said "we are a do-ocracy" and they told me to do what I want by myself and to stop bothering them with proposed policy changes. This is ludicrous.

Actually we are a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation governed by our own Bylaws and by the laws of Delaware and the United States. We should groan loudly when officers of ASF declare we are not a democracy. Someone besides me should object when a board member says to take my issues to a private Apache list where I am temporarily banned by the board from even posting and where the few board participants there already disagree with me. I've been trying that for several years now and it has accomplished nothing but my being banned under the so-called CoC because the Peter Pan crew here wants to have fun.

I've been an open source lawyer since before ASF was even incorporated. It saddens me to see this important institution refuse to consider changing itself to conform to the laws and FOSS licenses of today. Fortunately, ASF is a democracy and it elects its board and officers every year. There is hope.

There is also great FOSS software here. Please stay with us while we try to evolve!

/Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Bowen [mailto:rbowen@rcbowen.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 6:14 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Impasses and decision-making

On 06/06/2015 08:31 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Rich Bowen wrote:
>>Ah. Then clearly we are at an impasse. "I think someone should" is 
>>quite
> simply not how things happen here. If you feel that this is crazier 
> than normal, perhaps you've missed something. That is the definition 
> of normal. We are, as I said, a do-ocracy.
>
> Perhaps we are at an impasse. Seems much like that to me too some days.
>
> I vaguely remember that you **require** each Apache project to submit 
> a quarterly report that almost nobody reads and that usually says the 
> same thing each report. Would you like me to write those also?

Here we go again.

No, Larry, nobody is suggesting that you write reports for projects. 
We're suggesting that you do the thing that you claim that only you are qualified to do.

I have no idea what patents the httpd server might be using, nor do I know how to find out, nor do I particularly care. You seem to care. Do something about it. Or not. Whatever.

I do know what RFCs we implement, and we have documented those. In the documentation. Not in a file with a whimsical name, but actually in the docs. It's here: 
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/misc/relevant_standards.html


> Incubator and infrastructure committees are **required** to report 
> monthly. Want me to write those and save everyone the bother?
>
> I really hate it when board members pretend that The Apache Software 
> Foundation is free for every Peter Pan to have fun in. I thought our 
> corporate role was to provide professional support – including legally 
> strong policies – for open source projects. And then let THEM do it 
> themselves.
>

You are saying that "someone should", while also saying "nobody is qualified to do this". Surely that means that you're the only one that can do it. So do it. Or don't do it. But continuing to say, again and again, that someone should, doesn't seem terribly productive.

You are, of course, at complete liberty to dismiss and mock the way that Open Source happens, but it happens when people make it happen, not when people say "someone should."

I'm not speaking as the board. I'm speaking as a PMC member of a couple of projects. If you think that we're misusing patents (or whatever terminology you lawyer types like to use) then submit a docs patch. If you want me to call you Peter Pan, I'd be glad to, but I fail to see what that would accomplish.

Yes, Peter, here at Apache people scratch their itches, and we enable random members of the public to come in and scratch their itches. People who say "someone should" are assumed to be volunteering. If this is something that itches you, scratch it. Or don't. But please stop insisting that "someone should."

-- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: Impasses and decision-making

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On 06/06/2015 08:31 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Rich Bowen wrote:
>>Ah. Then clearly we are at an impasse. "I think someone should" is quite
> simply not how things happen here. If you feel that this is crazier than
> normal, perhaps you've missed something. That is the definition of
> normal. We are, as I said, a do-ocracy.
>
> Perhaps we are at an impasse. Seems much like that to me too some days.
>
> I vaguely remember that you **require** each Apache project to submit a
> quarterly report that almost nobody reads and that usually says the same
> thing each report. Would you like me to write those also?

Here we go again.

No, Larry, nobody is suggesting that you write reports for projects. 
We're suggesting that you do the thing that you claim that only you are 
qualified to do.

I have no idea what patents the httpd server might be using, nor do I 
know how to find out, nor do I particularly care. You seem to care. Do 
something about it. Or not. Whatever.

I do know what RFCs we implement, and we have documented those. In the 
documentation. Not in a file with a whimsical name, but actually in the 
docs. It's here: 
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/misc/relevant_standards.html


>
> Incubator and infrastructure committees are **required** to report
> monthly. Want me to write those and save everyone the bother?
>
> I really hate it when board members pretend that The Apache Software
> Foundation is free for every Peter Pan to have fun in. I thought our
> corporate role was to provide professional support – including legally
> strong policies – for open source projects. And then let THEM do it
> themselves.
>

You are saying that "someone should", while also saying "nobody is 
qualified to do this". Surely that means that you're the only one that 
can do it. So do it. Or don't do it. But continuing to say, again and 
again, that someone should, doesn't seem terribly productive.

You are, of course, at complete liberty to dismiss and mock the way that 
Open Source happens, but it happens when people make it happen, not when 
people say "someone should."

I'm not speaking as the board. I'm speaking as a PMC member of a couple 
of projects. If you think that we're misusing patents (or whatever 
terminology you lawyer types like to use) then submit a docs patch. If 
you want me to call you Peter Pan, I'd be glad to, but I fail to see 
what that would accomplish.

Yes, Peter, here at Apache people scratch their itches, and we enable 
random members of the public to come in and scratch their itches. People 
who say "someone should" are assumed to be volunteering. If this is 
something that itches you, scratch it. Or don't. But please stop 
insisting that "someone should."

-- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org