On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 06:04 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ben Hyde wrote:
'community.apache.org' web site.
-1
Uh, thanks Ben. That helped a lot understanding the reasons behind
your negative vote.
My prior post regarding this enthusiasm follows...
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list community@apache.org
Received: (qmail 12720 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2002 13:13:49
-0000
Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (204.127.198.39)
by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Nov 2002 13:13:49 -0000
Received: from pobox.com
(h00055da7108f.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.30.192.113])
by attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP
id <20021115131348053005tddbe>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:13:48
+0000
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:14:24 -0500
Subject: Re: @apache web pages
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
From: Ben Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: community@apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
It would be fun to have an Apache community aggregate of web logs, but
I have trouble seeing how it serves the foundation's mission. Sorry to
be a wet
blanket...
I'm concerned that if we create people.apache.org we create another
inside/outsider boundary. I've got a handful of other concerns about
this, but that's my primary one.
Some other ones...
I'd rather not co-mingles the Apache brand with the personal web face
of individuals in various subparts of the community.
Our mission. Creating great software. Puzzling out how to do that
productively in cooperative volunteer teams. Releasing that widely
under a license that is both open. Crafting an effective open license.
One that doesn't entrap folks.
I have to do a lot of A supports B supports C supports D before I get
to the conclusion that D, building out a mess of committer web pages,
supports A, the mission of the foundation.
I'm concerned that a few highly vocal members might generate the
impression that the foundation is taking positions that it's not.
Consider Sam's web log with where he's been poking at RSS - that's not
a ASF position. Consider my web log with it's rants on the wealth
distribution - that's not an ASF position.
The easiest way to avoid a star stage is not to build the stage.
- ben
