This forum is probably more applicable for these kinds of offers:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jeff Breidenbach
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
> -Original Message-
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 December 2004 08:42
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
> At 08:30 PM 12/16/2004, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> >Concerning our decision making
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 04:29
> To: [email protected]; 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
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;
-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
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
-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
-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
>
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
>
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
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
>
> "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
> -Original Message-
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 05:10
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:41, Noel J.
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
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 05:30
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
> > "consensus by attrition" is a negatively loaded term, yet a natural
> > occurring thing in all projects
>
> Not when
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
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
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 December 2004 22:16
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it's about dealing with the
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 05:30
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > Stephen McConnell wrote:
> > > > * What do you think
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
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
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
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"...
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.
Craig McClanahan wrote:
...
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.
+1 (@see my mantra below... what I want to accomplish,
what
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:43:14AM +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> 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
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
FYI:
The avalon-pmc archives are fully available to ASF Members. For those
who are done poking forks in their eyes, and would like something only
a bit less painful, then you can review the threads which talk about
"attrition" or "nazi" in the 200403 archive.
Cheers,
-g
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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.
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> 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?
This is such complete BS I'm almost speechless. You turn 'ask
-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
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
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> BUT, I *would* appreciate if you spent some of your intellect looking at the
> more important stuff raised in this thread under new Subject.
(I don't see any new thread yet.) If the stuff is raised as hypothetical
issues, sure.
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 /
> -Original Message-
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 14:32
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >>
> >> Once again, there was no technical
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
-
> -Original Message-
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 20:13
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2004, at 2:02 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> > Authority without
-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.
-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
> -Original Message-
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 20:22
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >>
> >> No policy adopted by a project can
> -Original Message-
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 20:22
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >>
> >> No policy adopted by a project can
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.
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
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
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,
On 21 Dec 2004, at 19:52, Niclas Hedhman 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, SO the
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
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
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:
>
>
>
>> Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers
>> in the
>> ASL2.0 can be
-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
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
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 21:55
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >
> > Clearly you are not prepared to face up
> -Original Message-
> From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 21:59
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Is ASL2.0 not "GPL-compatible" ??
>
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02,
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
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
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
>
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
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
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//
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
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
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
74 matches
Mail list logo
