On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:36 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Jason, the board has not leaked the information, so rest assured > it was not from us.
I'm not sure what information you're referring to. > Also rest assured that no one questions > Sonatypes committment to the users nor your pursuit of innovation. > We only question why Sonatype refuses to attribute Maven as > a mark of the ASF, even after I was assured by Wayne after > lunch that Sonatype would make those changes while we come up > with an acceptable MOU regarding maven.org. No, that's not what I recall being the order of events. But everything I know is second hand and broken telephone doesn't help anyone. You should get on the phone with Wayne and clarify because there have been repeated miscommunications and misunderstandings because you fail to follow up in the timely manner, or don't follow up at all. As a result of that you've left this project in the lurch and made Sonatype feel like an un-welcomed part of this community. Why would we want to participate here when we are treated like no other company involved at Apache has ever been treated? It would have taken you all of a day to settle the MOU issue when you talked to Wayne last but you passed the buck to the Maven PMC instead of dealing with it yourself. You took this out of the hands of the Maven PMC after we had a resolution so I have no idea you passed the issue back to them instead of driving the issue to resolution yourself. Three weeks has passed and nothing has happened. It may very be that what are understanding and what you relayed to the Maven PMC is not in sync. Get on the phone with Wayne put Larry Rosen on the phone as secretary, record the plan of action that will resolve the issue at hand and be done with it. You've made it several more orders of magnitude more complicated than it ever needed to be. > > On Jun 16, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> Jeff, >> >> I believe this strictly falls within the purview of the Apache Board to >> explain. In particular Jim, Doug and Shane. >> >> Only the board has the right to reveal the business that has been transacted >> on private lists. >> >> Rest assured that's Sonatype's commitment to Maven users and our pursuit of >> innovation with respect to Maven-related technologies has not stopped, and >> will not stop. >> >> On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jeff Jensen wrote: >> >>> Is there a forthcoming explanation for a seemingly Maven PMC shakeup? >>> I find it odd that consistently excellent contributors such as Lukas, >>> Brian, et al are suddenly not on the Maven PMC. This is concerning as >>> these are people who have drastically improved and moved Maven >>> forward. It's very concerning that a heavy committer such as Benjamin >>> is no longer committing as he has done very useful, fantastic work. >>> These events are very concerning for the forward progress of Maven. >>> The strong temptations for competitive products, a la Gradle, do not >>> allow Maven progress to stop; particularly the best progress to date >>> of the past year. These events are detrimental. For us uninformed, >>> what happened, why is it good, what is the plan forward behind this? >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> We all have problems. How we deal with them is a measure of our worth. >> >> -- Unknown >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead. -- Unknown
