You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> on 2004/08/25 15:39:31 UTC
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
[resend]
For the record (and if I wasn't clear before) I am NOT against playboy
being a mirror or Apache using the mirror (whether it is being blocked or
not). I AM against putting a link and/or image that links from Apache to
playboy.
Trust me, I've been all over playboy.com for reasons I don't care to
elaborate on (what can I say, I'm a guy ;). But I will not sit idly by and
let others (who apparently don't run their own business) put my company at
risk.
I always try to give credit where credit is due (powered by logo and link).
My clients (all but 1) are not skilled enough to want to download something
from a mirror and realize...."oh shit!!, look where its coming from!".
That's not likely to happen. They _would_ have a problem if one of _their_
clients or customers called and said they clicked their way from their site
to Apache, and on to Playboy. Hell, I might even get sued.
Here's a little test for you. Ask the eclipse project and/or IBM if they
would add playboy's logo and link if they agreed to provide some bandwidth
for them. What answer do you think you will get back? I can almost assure
you that if it is not "no", it will be "hell no".
Do you even realize how many web sites out there have "powered by" logos and
links to Apache and the various subprojects?
I am begging you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO NOT put their logo or link on our (yes,
OUR) web site. You can't even imagine what the media will do with this if
you do. God help us all.
If you do this, it will only hurt Apache's name and reputation.
> > If the current mirroring policy is broken, then it should be
> > said so with comments and suggestions on how to fix it.
+1 for rethinking the policy
P.S. Someone please fix the reply-to for this list, my mail client (as much
as it sucks) keeps trying to reply to the person, not the mailing list.
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
EdgeTech, Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sander Striker" <st...@apache.org>
To: <ji...@jaguNET.com>; "Steven Noels" <st...@outerthought.org>
Cc: "Apache Infrastructure" <in...@apache.org>; "Daniel Quinlan"
<qu...@pathname.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: Playboy mirror logo?
> From: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 1:34 PM
>
>
> > If the current mirroring policy is broken, then it should be
> > said so with comments and suggestions on how to fix it.
> >
> > Such policies exist to allow for simple "check-off" type
> > of responses and to avoid the need for discussions and
> > debates. Policies exist to be objective, not subjective :)
>
> +1.
>
> Sander
>
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
EdgeTech, Inc.
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dirk-Willem van Gulik" <di...@webweaving.org>
To: "Erik Abele" <er...@codefaktor.de>
Cc: "Apache Infrastructure" <in...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:12 AM
Subject: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
>
> Please move POLICY discussion to community@, OR if it is senstive to
> members@ OR if it needs a deceision NOW to board@ (or call a board member
> by phone).
>
> This group, infrastructure@, carries out policy - it does not set it (and
> when this group is in doubt they known where to ask - and have a track
> record of beeing good at that :-); so lets not waste their scarce time
> debating it here.
>
> The only posting on this topic I expect on this list is a pointer to where
> the discussion is continued and at some time in the future perhaps a
> message setting new dirctions by describing consensus.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dw.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, James Mitchell wrote:
> I am begging you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO NOT put their logo or link on our (yes,
> OUR) web site. You can't even imagine what the media will do with this if
> you do. God help us all.
You are exagerating to the extreme.
Go to google and count how many media organizations themselves link to
www.playboy.com (as opposed to the corporate site which we are linking
to).
You'll see cnet, wired, prnewswire, dmoz, etc.
If you look at www.playboyenterprises.com, the site we link to, you'll
find every major stock-listing site on the web links to them.
So I guess "the media" will have some work to do before the catch up to
bothering us.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 02:01, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Right now we have no real policy with regard to Mirrors; essentially
> anyone can run a mirror, tell us; we add and they get a logo if they
> submit one as a small thank you.
>
> Legally it is entireyly up to the ASF to choose whether to list a
mirror
> or not.
>
> Recently Playboy.com submitted one. It was added as normal.
[snip]
> So let me put in my 5 cents into policy:
>
> and provided that
>
> -> Their goals do not inherently conflict with the ASF
> and its bylaws and goals (see http://www.apache.org/foundation/
> for the base principle)
>
> -> The link/logo provided points to a page describing the
> entity providing the download cannot be considered
> overly offensive to the majority of our user community.
>
> Any reports that such is the case will be brough to the board swiftly
> which will either resolve those, where needed with assistance from
> members@. Board may choose to direct infrastructure@ to take the
mirror
> out of rotation while resolving it in the meantime but will not do so
by
> default.
>
> And provided that:
>
> -> The organisation or its logo is not legally banned in
> a country in which a *member* has taken up residence **.
>
> in which case that Member can directly inform Board@; quote the
relevant
> local legislation and pending -this- investigation infratructure@ will
> take the mirror out of rotation by default unless otherwise
instructed.
>
> Appeals can be made to board and board only.
>
> Feel free to improve this strawman.
I am pretty much in favour of this proposal. Attempts to define what is
and what is not morally acceptable to the huge range of Apache
developers and Apache users is not likely to reach consensus this
millenium :-). I think it's better to have a lax acceptance policy with
the ability for people to object later than try to define up-front what
is permissable.
I would tweak Dirk's proposal slightly:
<proposal>
* Their goals do not conflict with the ASF etc.. (as per above)
* The organisation and its logo must not be illegal in the
home country of the organisation
* The organisation must not be illegal according to the united nations
Infrastructure may refer any mirror proposal to the board.
The board may choose to direct infrastructure to remove any mirror, but
should only do so if the organisation violates one of the thress points
above, or a majority of the ASF members are opposed. They are not
required to hold a vote; they may take action if it is their expectation
that >50% would object (so that obviously offensive sitations can be
dealt with promptly).
Note that the Board is *not* expected to "approve" mirrors; mirrors are
normally automatically accepted by infrastructure with the Board only
handling objections.
If any member of the Apache foundation finds the organisation or its
logo offensive, the burden is on them to persuade the board that more
than 50% of the members object to the situation.
</proposal>
The sentence about Infrastructure being able to refer proposals to the
board takes the pressure off them for suspect applications.
I propose "a majority of members" be the test rather than "a majority of
users". The results should be similar, but evaluating member opinion is
much easier. And in the end, I think that as the ASF is providing a free
service it has the right to provide that service as it, not its users,
sees best.
With this policy, very few mirrors are likely to be declined. I think
Playboy would be accepted. That means that Apache developers/users need
to accept that there may be organisations they don't agree with. They
should then choose a different mirror. There are definitely
organisations I disapprove of, but that's the way the world is, and
making the ASF a censorship bureau is not healthy.
I think Dirk's proposal for "organisation illegal in any country with an
Apache member" is likely to cause unnecessary trouble. As an example,
mirrors hosted by the Taiwanese Government may not be allowed if the
Taiwanese Government is an illegal organisation in China, despite the
fact that >50% of apache members may well be happy with having such a
mirror. Or if some country declares media company X illegal, because
they object to a news article on the site, does that make it necessary
to remove their mirror?
One concern: I don't know the legality of a mirror site 'A' having links
to other mirror sites representing organisations not legal in the host
country for site 'A'. If this is a problem, then maybe Dirk's phrasing
is necessary.
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
I suggest we simply drop the logos and hypertext links for all the mirrors.
We say that people who want to "give back" to Apache shouldn't care if we put an @author "link" in the source code. (And I agree.)
So why not say that mirrors who want to "give back" to Apache shouldn't care if we link to their site or display their logo? Are they giving back for the benefit of our community, or because of "fascination with the Apache brand"?
Apparently, only 38 of 200+ mirrors have submitted a logo. If most don't care about the logo, would they care about the link?
We could keep a plain-text list of the mirrors in the apache.org/dev section, for reference, along with our machines and so forth. But I don't see that we need to give corporations that contribute bandwidth more credit than individuals who contribute patches, code, and user support.
If the infrastructure@ team determines that there is a service issue with a mirror, either because of downtime or excessive corporate blacklisting, infrastructure@ could decide to remove it on technical grounds.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
So let me put in my 5 cents into policy II:
-> Any company willing too mirror us can do so and can
have their logo+link handled.
-> Any submissions meeting the 3 mechanical goals below
will be swiftly handled and added.
Provided that
-> They mirror us faithfully (*)
-> They have enough bandwidth (*)
-> They do it reliable enouhg (*)
*: Substitute some mechanical numbers which are
published and regularly measured.
and provided that there is a disclaimer right under the link
and the logo which says:
The Apache Software Foundation has accepted the
services offered by this mirror in good faith. We
urge our users to verify the md5 and pgp signatures.
Secondly we are in no way responsible for this mirror,
nor are weaffiliated with it, so this pointer should not be seen
as as endorsement of this particilar mirror, its owners,
or their views on live, the universe and everything else.
:)
DW
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
Right now we have no real policy with regard to Mirrors; essentially
anyone can run a mirror, tell us; we add and they get a logo if they
submit one as a small thank you.
Legally it is entireyly up to the ASF to choose whether to list a mirror
or not.
Recently Playboy.com submitted one. It was added as normal.
The question was; is that good - is that bad - is that a slipperly slope ?
My personal opinion is that it is good; any faithfull mirror is good for
our community, our users and that the link, which points to a corperate
site, is perfectly apporpriate and not harmful or offensive to our
community.
The ASF its core concern is that of stewarding code; and such mirrors do
not damage the code or its stability. It may damage the apache community
though. And that is a concern. And one which some people in our communtiy
wants addressed.
So let me put in my 5 cents into policy:
-> Any company willing too mirror us can do so and can
have their logo+link handled.
-> Any submissions meeting the 3 mechanical goals below
will be swiftly handled and added.
Provided that
-> They mirror us faithfully (*)
-> They have enough bandwidth (*)
-> They do it reliable enouhg (*)
*: Substitute some mechanical numbers which are
published and regularly measured.
and provided that
-> Their goals do not inherently conflict with the ASF
and its bylaws and goals (see http://www.apache.org/foundation/
for the base principle)
-> The link/logo provided points to a page describing the
entity providing the download cannot be considered
overly offensive to the majority of our user community.
Any reports that such is the case will be brough to the board swiftly
which will either resolve those, where needed with assistance from
members@. Board may choose to direct infrastructure@ to take the mirror
out of rotation while resolving it in the meantime but will not do so by
default.
And provided that:
-> The organisation or its logo is not legally banned in
a country in which a *member* has taken up residence **.
in which case that Member can directly inform Board@; quote the relevant
local legislation and pending -this- investigation infratructure@ will
take the mirror out of rotation by default unless otherwise instructed.
Appeals can be made to board and board only.
Feel free to improve this strawman.
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 25 Aug 2004, at 15:53, Sam Ruby wrote:
> The closest thing I see to that in your email is a suggestion that we
> let the Eclipse Foundation be the final arbiter in who the Apache
> Software Foundation will allow to be listed as an official mirror.
... or that the opinions of those who don't run their own businesses
should be evaluated differently from those of business owners. Beats
me.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2004, at 15:18, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> I completely agree with Vadim.
>>
>> if you don't like to download stuff from "playboy.com" don't. How hard
>> is that?
>
>
> IIUC, the technical issue people are referring to is that the download
> page (and the dropdown list of servers to download from) won't appear at
> all because the string "playboy" features in it. Does this happen? Well:
> http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/archives/000513.html (10/2002)
It's OT, but why it is blocked? Because of "petting-zoo"? It's getting
ridiculous.
> (I do wonder if they are able to read this discussion, BTW).
>
> So, *if* we find this to be a valid concern, we might ask PB to provide
> another hostname for it.
>
> I do hope however no other mirror has a hostname featuring strings like
> "private", or "hustler", or "penthouse" or any other so-called dubious
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=penthouse
An apartment or dwelling situated on the roof of a building.
.. screw such firewalls ... if you are coming to AC2004, how you are
going to reserve a room in the hotel?
:-)
Vadim
> name in it (in which I have elaborated about my known list of adult
> magazines, I assume I haven't read them all), and many other words which
> such censoring software might recognize as NSFW.
>
> All in all, this thread is becoming highly amusing. :-)
>
> BTW, I'm still +1 on keeping the cluestick in our hands, and leave the
> situation like Erik installed it.
>
> </Steven>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 26 Aug 2004, at 15:18, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> I completely agree with Vadim.
>
> if you don't like to download stuff from "playboy.com" don't. How hard
> is that?
IIUC, the technical issue people are referring to is that the download
page (and the dropdown list of servers to download from) won't appear
at all because the string "playboy" features in it. Does this happen?
Well: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/archives/000513.html (10/2002)
(I do wonder if they are able to read this discussion, BTW).
So, *if* we find this to be a valid concern, we might ask PB to provide
another hostname for it.
I do hope however no other mirror has a hostname featuring strings like
"private", or "hustler", or "penthouse" or any other so-called dubious
name in it (in which I have elaborated about my known list of adult
magazines, I assume I haven't read them all), and many other words
which such censoring software might recognize as NSFW.
All in all, this thread is becoming highly amusing. :-)
BTW, I'm still +1 on keeping the cluestick in our hands, and leave the
situation like Erik installed it.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Le 25 août 04, à 15:53, Sam Ruby a écrit :
>>
>>> ...What Jim meant when he said that is that people should STOP saying
>>> things like "I am begging you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and "God help us all.",
>>> and START making concrete suggestions on how the policy itself should
>>> change...
>>
>>
>> So how about:
>> a) In principle, only logos from IT-related [1] entities are accepted
>
>
> -1. First of all, what's non-IT company's fault so it gets discriminated
> like that? Are they somehow "second class" and "do not deserve" to be
> mentioned? Second of all, I just don't see any logical justification
> behind this suggestion.
>
>
>> b) Logos from other entities might be accepted if a vote among ASF
>> members is more than X percent positive (suggest 80%)
>
>
> "we will take your bandwidth, thank you, but your logo too sucky to be
> ever shown on our page". That's not the message I'd like ASF to show to
> the world out there.
I completely agree with Vadim.
if you don't like to download stuff from "playboy.com" don't. How hard
is that?
--
Stefano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> http://mirrors.playboy.com/icons/playboy.gif
FWIW, while on-site at IBM, I could not access the mirror, even by IP
address.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> (BTW, I havent found this playboy logo yet - bear with me, just back
> from long holidays ;-)
Here we go:
http://mirrors.playboy.com/icons/playboy.gif
;-)
Vadim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Thanks Vadim, I see your points and basically agree - Dirk's proposal
to accept all logos/mirrors with possible exceptions (illegal, banned,
found offensive by many) sounds easier and certainly good enough.
-Bertrand
(BTW, I havent found this playboy logo yet - bear with me, just back
from long holidays ;-)
Le 26 août 04, à 12:54, Vadim Gritsenko a écrit :
> ...-1. First of all, what's non-IT company's fault so it gets
> discriminated like that? Are they somehow "second class" and "do not
> deserve" to be mentioned? Second of all, I just don't see any logical
> justification behind this suggestion.
>
>
>> b) Logos from other entities might be accepted if a vote among ASF
>> members is more than X percent positive (suggest 80%)
>
> "we will take your bandwidth, thank you, but your logo too sucky to be
> ever shown on our page". That's not the message I'd like ASF to show
> to the world out there....
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Le 25 août 04, à 15:53, Sam Ruby a écrit :
>
>> ...What Jim meant when he said that is that people should STOP saying
>> things like "I am begging you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and "God help us all.",
>> and START making concrete suggestions on how the policy itself should
>> change...
>
> So how about:
> a) In principle, only logos from IT-related [1] entities are accepted
-1. First of all, what's non-IT company's fault so it gets discriminated
like that? Are they somehow "second class" and "do not deserve" to be
mentioned? Second of all, I just don't see any logical justification
behind this suggestion.
> b) Logos from other entities might be accepted if a vote among ASF
> members is more than X percent positive (suggest 80%)
"we will take your bandwidth, thank you, but your logo too sucky to be
ever shown on our page". That's not the message I'd like ASF to show to
the world out there.
Vadim
> In this way, the basic rule is simple and we still allow exceptions when
> they make sense to a large majority of the ASF members.
>
> WDYT?
>
> -Bertrand
>
>
> [1] for example: IT companies, other open-source projects, universities,
> ISPs, gov agencies, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le 25 août 04, à 15:53, Sam Ruby a écrit :
> ...What Jim meant when he said that is that people should STOP saying
> things like "I am begging you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and "God help us all.",
> and START making concrete suggestions on how the policy itself should
> change...
So how about:
a) In principle, only logos from IT-related [1] entities are accepted
b) Logos from other entities might be accepted if a vote among ASF
members is more than X percent positive (suggest 80%)
In this way, the basic rule is simple and we still allow exceptions
when they make sense to a large majority of the ASF members.
WDYT?
-Bertrand
[1] for example: IT companies, other open-source projects,
universities, ISPs, gov agencies, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
James Mitchell wrote:
> [resend]
>
> For the record (and if I wasn't clear before) I am NOT against playboy
> being a mirror or Apache using the mirror (whether it is being blocked or
> not). I AM against putting a link and/or image that links from Apache to
> playboy.
>
> Trust me, I've been all over playboy.com for reasons I don't care to
> elaborate on (what can I say, I'm a guy ;). But I will not sit idly by and
> let others (who apparently don't run their own business) put my company at
> risk.
>
> I always try to give credit where credit is due (powered by logo and link).
> My clients (all but 1) are not skilled enough to want to download something
> from a mirror and realize...."oh shit!!, look where its coming from!".
> That's not likely to happen. They _would_ have a problem if one of _their_
> clients or customers called and said they clicked their way from their site
> to Apache, and on to Playboy. Hell, I might even get sued.
>
> Here's a little test for you. Ask the eclipse project and/or IBM if they
> would add playboy's logo and link if they agreed to provide some bandwidth
> for them. What answer do you think you will get back? I can almost assure
> you that if it is not "no", it will be "hell no".
>
> Do you even realize how many web sites out there have "powered by" logos and
> links to Apache and the various subprojects?
>
> I am begging you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO NOT put their logo or link on our (yes,
> OUR) web site. You can't even imagine what the media will do with this if
> you do. God help us all.
>
> If you do this, it will only hurt Apache's name and reputation.
>
>>>If the current mirroring policy is broken, then it should be
>>>said so with comments and suggestions on how to fix it.
>
> +1 for rethinking the policy
"rethinking the policy" is NOT what Jim suggested.
What Jim meant when he said that is that people should STOP saying
things like "I am begging you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and "God help us all.", and
START making concrete suggestions on how the policy itself should change.
The closest thing I see to that in your email is a suggestion that we
let the Eclipse Foundation be the final arbiter in who the Apache
Software Foundation will allow to be listed as an official mirror.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org