On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation Sam, I have to ask for your patience with me as > there is one remark in there that leaves me confused; Don't feel obligated > to answer in length but please confirm or negate my suspicion > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > ... > > >> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the >> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again. >> >> I don't see any action taken by the cloudstack team that couldn't have > been initiated by a complete outsider. I am assuming you mean the fork to > the cloudstack organisation. This organisation was created by Mark, I think > and was taken control of by our VP as a precaution to keep others from > making or using it, so I would think the board would applaud this instead > of giving us a (kind of) reprimand. So again and in order for us to not > make such a mistake again... > > Can you please explain? > > I am pushing this because there is clearly irritation on the side of the > board with the PMCs behaviour and vice versa and I feel, probably like you, > this is not largely but completely due to lack of communication and > transparency. Of course I might be as dumb as I feel and this might not be > the action you refer to at all.
I see you posted a later email identifying one of the points of confusion while I was composing this reply. Cool. Meanwhile: I'm on the board, I'm not irritated. At least not at CloudStack. :-) The initial action (creating the fork) was not clearly done by the PMC as a whole, that is now being rectified by a retroactive vote being taken. Even that I wouldn't suggest be done any differently: many parts of the ASF prefer a Commit then Review (CTR). Under normal circumstances, a vote would not be necessary. > -- > Daan - Sam Ruby
