Please board and everybody at dev, Until the vote thread initiated by Will no action has been taken or sactioned by the PMC, only discussions were started. It has never been the intention of the PMC to move away from any repository but only to add a fork to facilitate work. The misunderstanding described by Sam below is most likely due to some of my own words in the thread 'github organisation cloudstack' [1]
mea culpa, in the thread I started with <quote> There is a github organisation called cloudstack, to which we have more control then to the apache/cloudstack repo on github. We need to decide as community what to do with it. What are we going to do in this new organisation? Will we let/ask Schuberg Philis to put cosmic in there? Will be ask/let Will to run upr to it (so we don't depend on the foundation)? How will we sink it from/to apache or the apache github organisation? Any other ideas/questions? let's discuss or better, </quote> Reading this back I can see how this can be interpreted in several ways, I'm sorry. [1] http://markmail.org/message/pca3j6vzojik2xyd On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > >> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going > >> on. > > > > Jim, I am not a native english speaker and this remark has no meaning to > > me. It sounds somewhat hostile, can you explain what you mean? > > I think there was a misunderstanding and history involved, and I'm > working to clean that up. > > The history involved is not unique to CloudStack. It often comes up > when large projects or large companies are involved. I work for a > large company (IBM), and often when IBM contemplates donating a > project to the ASF, the people involved are referred to me. The most > extreme example I recall was when a high level executive told me he > wanted to take a project to Apache, but wanted a different license, to > be able to control who got commit access, and to run the project on > different hardware. My response was simply: "then you don't want to > come to the ASF". > > Here we had the CloudStack PMC make a reasonable request to ASF > infrastructure team (i.e., for more granular permissions), and were > not only told no, but that their request was placed on the back > burner. I'm not proud of that response. A technical solution to the > problem was developed (kudos!) and a proof of concept was deployed > (cool!). Unfortunately, the proof of concept was poorly communicated, > and many (not just Jim!) saw this as an unfriendly act. And to be > very clear, the optics were very bad: within 5 days of opening a JIRA > that was rejected, the CloudStack team looked like they were > unilaterally moving off of the ASF provided GitHub repository. > > I don't think that there are any easy answers. In particular, I don't > think that projects should ever have to simply take no for an answer. > And the fact that the board didn't provide a response to the top issue > listed in the December board report, and didn't reply to the attempt > to provide an out-of-cycle report last month didn't help. > > Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the > CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again. > > - Sam Ruby > -- Daan
