Ultimately it doesn't matter now. The project has a bright future with the involvement of all individuals regardless of the company they work for. That's the important thing.
> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No it wasn't. You're citing the eventual and agreed upon outcome. I was > talking about the approach which is clear in the dev and user list threads > that the board was involved in. It is also apparently much more apparent in > the private threads which apparently the PMC can make public. > >> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >> Which is what was done: >> https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Cassandra.html >> >>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> If the ASF is at risk with a single company allowed to dominate a project >>> then why couldn't the approach have been something like: "great job on >>> building a successful project and community. We think there is great >>> potential for more involvement at the core contribution level. How can we >>> work together to augment the existing efforts to encourage contribution and >>> bring in new contributors? By the way here are a couple of policy and >>> trademark things that we need to get fixed." >>> >>> I didn't understand the assumption that DataStax was doing something >>> nefarious nor the approach that was taken. On a personal note I had tried >>> to ask about evidence and the approach previously but was ignored: >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cassandra.apache.org/msg09101.html >>> Perhaps that was due to the volume of messages on that thread but I don't >>> feel those questions were ever addressed. >>> >>> Regardless, I see a positive way forward for the project and am grateful to >>> everyone working towards that. >>> >>
