On 2 Oct 2006, at 08:17, Leo Simons wrote:
At the formation of the project all members of the group were
asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of
September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
commiter status was in the works. However, despite several follow
up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer for the
delay provided.
Sometimes this kind of thing does happen around here; its part of
having stuff done by volunteers (who, incidentally, where probably
at ApacheCon EU, ApacheCon Asia, on holiday, and then probably had
loads of stuff to do at work).
Understood, but in Kevin's case there have been many weeks without
any acknowledgment of his emails. Sorry, but despite having other
jobs to do a little courtesy goes a long way.
Have we been waiting 2 months based on false assumptions? We
believed that, as supporters of the submission, we had already
gone through the process of arguing who should, or should not, be
an initial commiter, so to be presented with a different result
(and one which appears to have been conducted behind closed doors)
is frustrating.
Quite understandable, it seems your assumptions were correct 2
months ago (having your name on an initial committer list obviously
tends to mean you'll be one of the initial committers!), and aren't
correct now, and this wasn't communicated well at all. From follow-
up I understand that your mentors will provide more insight into
what happened, which you're definitely entitled to (and quite a few
people around here will definitely want to know, so sending this e-
mail was a good thing). Further discussion should probably be with
them and the cxf PPMC.
Does tend to leave a bad taste in the mouth though. More so about how
it has been handled.
Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project
was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation
of the group.
Hmm. I don't like the "piling on" phrase, it somehow presents this
picture to me of some stupid lemmings seeing a way to conquer the
ASF, which is offensive because our contributors aren't like lemmings.
It's a phrase I've seen used before concerning Apache projects and
one that was used by some (though not us AFAIK) when building the
list of initial committers as the project was being formed and
submitted.
However, the ASF in general and the incubator in specific *is*
always concerned about having a "sort of ASF kind of community",
and experience has shown that big lists of new-to-apache, new-to-
the-project committers for a new incubator project doesn't always
work the best way.
Is random denial of initial commiters typical?
Not at all, in fact I'm confident that's never ever happened. The
assertion that this decision is "random" is a little offensive.
No offense meant, but given the blackbox approach, what else could
one infer from this?!
The assumption should be that it was a careful decision made in the
best interest of CXF and the ASF.
Sorry, but being strung along for the past 2 months on one set of
assumptions only to be presented with a fait accomplit, I'm not in
the mood to give the benefit of the doubt. A "careful decision" would
be one based on all of the facts and arrived at by consultation with
all of the parties involved.
Once again, sorry about this frustrating experience for you. I hope
all the responses provide some more insight into why things
happened the way they did.
I does to a degree, and thanks for spending the time to try to answer
my questions. I appreciate it.
Mark.
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
