On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> On 2/9/14 2:03 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org> wrote: >> >>> * Go and fork the project code on GitHub. >>> * Put your changes in there and PR them up into the Apache codebase. >>> * If others want to, they can PR the code to you, and then you can PR the >>> code up to the codebase (or the group of you could work as a community >>> preparing PRs). >>> * The one pushing into the Apache codebase needs to be confident that the >>> code is covered by CLAs. >>> * You can release in GitHub whenever you want. >>> * The Apache release happens less often and follows the rules. >>> >> >> Keep in mind that if this is in any way a PMC activity then it is part >> of Apache trying to circumvent the rest of Apache, i.e., not advised. >> A distinct legal entity may indeed fork, re-brand, alter and release >> any Apache project using policies it prefers, but this must be clearly >> separate from any Apache project. A subset of a PMC acting as >> individuals would be murky territory if they share no common legal >> entity outside Apache. >> >> Doug >> > > The key point is: who is the "we" that the world perceives doing this? > This whole discussion really underscores the importance of trademarks and > the Apache brand. > > We're quite happy for anyone to take our code and ship it just about > however they like. But they can't call it an Apache project: only a PMC > here at Apache can do that. While the original reason for most ASF > release, branding, legal, etc. policies is to ensure our legal safety, the > very real effect of these policies and their consistent application in PMCs > is that our projects following these policies are *seen by the rest of the > world* as being "Apache projects". > That's not what Doug implied. If we view Apache as a certification of a certain style of quality, then that fits nicely with my suggestion that anyone wanting a faster cadence should go do such under their own name/brand and roll the changes up to the mainline for certification. But the suggestion from Doug is that the act of a subset of the PMC doing this would create confusion (I assume that's the murky effect) and be bad. Of course an easy option is to resign from the PMC and remain a committer ;) Hen
