On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:45, Rich Bowen wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >> I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC > >> approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists > >> are created. Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be > >> a part of the ASF is a flat-out lie. > > > > So, that means disqualifying for Incubation and no chance of moving the > > project to ASF?? > > It means, IMHO, that they don't yet "get it." Since the purpose of the > Incubator is to ensure that folks do indeed "get it", it would be > unfortunate to disqualify for entrance anyone who has demonstrated that > they don't in fact already get it. > > So, no, I'd say that this does not disqualify them for entrance. It does > mean, however, that someone must approach them and instruct them on > the ways in which their actions demonstrate a lack of getting it.
IMVHO, Justin's "in favour of enforcing a strict embargo" doesn't sound like "hit their fingers and say 'Bad boy!', followed by a hug". A simple matrix of act/consequence can be published on Incubator website, but isn't it necessary to have some significant deterents? Otherwise, "flat-out lie" will be accompanied with a "flat-out defiance". > It seems that this process is already underway, via Ted. I thought we were speaking "in general" and "pro-actively", since retro-active measures are not really serving ASF either. Cheers Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
