On 22 Jan 2005, at 17:30, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:31:32 +0000, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On 21 Jan 2005, at 01:00, Martin Cooper wrote:
For now, I am -1 on this.
Unless I'm mistaken, the reason the license is in there is because we were specifically asked by the board to include it. Until we are explicitly told by the board that this is no longer the case, I believe it needs to stay there.
I don't count Brian's comments on legal-discuss as sufficient for a
go-ahead to remove it, since he was not speaking with his board member
hat on. (That is, he mailed from his CollabNet account, not his ASF
account.)
i find it really hard to know which hat people are wearing these days. for example, is this -1 with your member hat on (in which case there's no real point continuing this vote) or just as a jakarta committer?
I don't see that there's a meaningful difference here as to whether I'm speaking as an ASF member, a Jakarta PMC member, or a Jakarta committer. I'm not a board member, so I don't speak for the board, and wouldn't pretend to. (I'm curious, though, as to why you believe there would be no point continuing the vote if an ASF member -1s, but not if a Jakarta committer or PMC member -1s.)
in the end, power rests with the members, not the board. opinions amongst the wider membership seem now to be formed on private lists and in the increasing number of committees whose mailing lists are members only. pmc'ers and committers have no voice and no way to know the result of any debates held on those lists. it's therefore sometimes hard to know when a member makes a comment which is meant to be taken as a personal opinion and when it's meant to be understood as the current consensus amongst the membership. (as you're probably aware) the jakarta project is in a weak position and the commons even more so. to me, it seems better to lose a few battles (by bowing to the opinions of members) but gain time to restructure jakarta (or at least ensure it's shut down in an organized fashion). i always now err on the side of caution.
IIRC though there the reason for adding it came from the board, the interpretation (putting the license on javadocs) came from discussions with brian.
This makes it all the more confusing, since the reason for removing it also appears to have come from discussions with Brian. I definitely think we need clarification before we make any changes.
the legal theories on which the ASF is based seem to have been refined over the years. i have noticed that there have been a number of occasions when accepted principles have had to be altered recently in the light of better legal advice. i find some of the newer organization theories hard to understand but then IANAL...
i'd personally be happy to follow brian's advice but if you can find the time to raise this officially as a member, i'd be equally happy to abide by whatever you discover.
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
