On 13.01.2012 13:31, Rob Weir wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Ross Gardler
<rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote:
On 13 January 2012 01:31, Rob Weir<robw...@apache.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ross Gardler
<rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote:
It was said in reply to the VP Legal
affairs saying "That [holding MPL code in SVN] normally is highly
discouraged / not allowed."
You are putting words in Sam's mouth. The topic there was about
forking MPL components, i.e., having an Apache project act as a
maintainer of a fork of MPL and doing MPL development.
If I am putting words in Sams mouth then I apologise. However, the
goal posts appear to be moving here. I thought I was safe quoting from
that thread since you referred to it yourself, indicating that it gave
approval for what you want to do. It can't be relevant in your defence
and not in mine.
Are we talking at cross-purposes?
I'm trying to develop understanding. To me it appears (and this is my
personal opinion only) that you are cobbling together quotes out of
context to support an undocumented position. So yes, we are talking
at cross-purposes.
It might be worth going back to the IPMC discussion from December on
"concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases". There
were a lot of good comments, along the lines of:
"there aren't that many rules so before assuming something really is a
rule try to find where its document that it is, and if no one can find
that doc then
its not a rule. Also, rules are only defined on policy pages so just
because some "guide" type page says something doesn't make it true."
or
"Not everything was written in docs, and still not.
Not everything needs to be, as lots is common sense.
The email archives are "documents".
Once one understands the principles of why the ASF as a foundation
needs to do certain things, then the so-called rules are obvious
consequences."
and
"Enumerate these principles and demonstrate the logical entailment of
source releases."
That is why it would be particularly useful if you could articulate
some reasoning behind your statements, rather than just say something
not-very-useful like "I am the policy book" and claiming some
unwritten policy without even defining what that unwritten policy is.
If you explain the reasoning, then this and other things should amount
to "common sense".
+1
-Andre
>[...]
