> -----Original Message----- > From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 September 2004 15:31 > To: community@apache.org > Cc: 'Apache Board' > Subject: Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > [resending, with modifications, due to screwed up cc list the first time] > > Stephen McConnell wrote: > > > > I find this discussion and the usage of terms such as "severe lack of > > respect" to be out of place and largely disproportionate with the real > > topic, substance and events. > > all right. i disagree, however, at least with the 'out of place' aspect. > > > I received an email from the Chairman (with a specific note that that > > the message was issue by the Chairman in that capacity). > > indeed, on rechecking i see that i was working from a false premise. a > couple of the addressees were hidden behind my mailer's twisty; yours > was one of them. i was mistaken about you having been omitted from > the original message, and i withdraw those remarks and humbly apologise > for the statements and insinuations i made. > > > Following receipt of the "official" notification from the Board > > concerning the Metro Project submission - I contacted Niclas as part of > > our normal process of coordination. I expressed some opinions and > > concerns to Niclas on the subject of the notification - including the > > subject of the reservations and the strongly implied implications or > > those reservations. A particular concern that I raised was the absence > > of any supporting justification or explanation for the "reservation" > > that was for all intensive purposes an explicit and directed exclusion > > of my participation in the oversight of a project to which I am > > committed, engaged and actively contributing. > > i don't intend to get into the 'bring me a rock' scenario concerning > who said what when to justify whichever. all the information is > available in the archives. i imagine either sam or brian will post > relevant pointers. if they don't, perhaps i will. notwithstanding, > there *are* documented incidents leading to the reservation.
Thanks - this addresses the center of my concern and I would like you know that I appreciate any actions from yourself, sam, or brian on this subject. > > What is in question is the openness of the Apache Software Foundation > > and that question is of interest to every committer at Apache. > > > > It is my opinion the Niclas posted his initial comments to the list > > simply as a "heads-up" to each and every committer here that something > > happened recently that simply was not right. > > that opinion may or may not reflect actual fact. let us assume for the > moment that it does. 'was not right' is also a matter of opinion. what > is not a matter of opinion, but is rather a matter of fact, is that niclas > quoted a private message in a public forum without consulting the author. > attempting to raise awareness by defining a hypothetical case, or even an > actual case with the specifics removed, would have been much more > acceptable, > although there is a slippery slope. quoting a private message without > permission isn't acceptable at all. > > > Will the actions taken by Niclas in defending the principals of openness > > and community within the ASF simply lead to another statement of > > "serious reservation" concerning his role and potential contribution? > > possibly, in terms of roles involving representation or social > responsibility. > this sequence *should* have no effect on opinions concerning his technical > ability and contributions. people are people, however. > > i am dismayed that the private message was exposed the way it was. i am > much more concerned that the individual involved apparently doesn't see > the action as incorrect. if i felt comfortable that it *did* understand > why it was inappropriate, i personally would be glad to regard the > incident as a one-time mistake arising from misunderstanding or cultural > differences, and most of my concern would evaporate. > > >> i do not intend to 'fuel the flames,' but neither do i intend to let > >> anyone get away unchallenged with assertions or implications about our > >> organization that are patently untrue. > > > > Please consider this message as my direct and immediate challenge. > > to what, specifically? to my admitted-above patently-untrue assertion > that > you weren't on the initial distribution? Yes. > done. Great. > something else? Yep - just wanted to say thank you and that you reply was very much appreciated in terms of both substance and style. Stephen. > - -- > #ken P-|} --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
