Re-focus [was: Re: New chair and/or attic]

[Liviu Nicoara <ni...@hates.ms>]

On 08/31/12 08:18, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Aug 30, 2012, at 5:45 PM, C. Bergström<cb...@pathscale.com>  wrote:
>> [...]
>> STDCXX isn't some stupid ass java framework or widget - It's a *critical* part of a C++ stack and the cost of leaving it out of the attic is negligible - What's the benefit of bringing up these attic discussions?
>
> It's a "critical" part in which people either lack the time, motivation or
> desire to push or submit patches to the canonical source?
>
> Or is the desire to "force" Apache's hand in the matter such that
> someone else's fork or branch becomes the de-facto source of this
> "critical" part???
>
> If stdcxx is as important as you say, and you are fighting to
> keep it active, then put your money where your mouth is and
> start working on bumping up the activity. Submit your bug fixes.

This discussion is going nowhere and is not becoming of a professional community. By now it must be clear where everybody's interests lie; all who can read took note of that. Since this is largely a dispute between Apache and Pathscale as an alleged representative of a free software community I suggest you take the licensing related discussions in private.

L