On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Can you please expand on "I think the answer starts with the very skepticism > of top-down governance which has in large part kept us from having clear > rules up till now." > > I'm not clear on what the "skepticism" is that you refer to as these threads > have indicated that there are at least two very different views on whether > there is, or is not, top down governance in the ASF. I meant to tip my hat to those who have spared Apache from adopting cumbersome absolute rules over the years. By "skeptics", I was thinking of people who, when presented with an elaborate policy proposal, question whether some or all of it is truly required. It's clear that this undertaking calls for a "governs best which governs least" approach. We want the simplest rules possible; committing to concrete language is inherently constraining, and we want to minimize that effect. But just because Apache's requirements are underspecified right now doesn't mean we don't have any. Establishing where the rules begin and end will allow projects to spend less time researching and arguing over what is required. Projects may even discover newfound flexibility. For example, when the Incubator PMC clarified its collective understanding of release policy, it became able to reach consensus on approving many release candidates which would previously have been sent back. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
