Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hello;

I am sad to see corinthia move outside the ASF. It looks like it's 
pretty late to change that and as someone said Apache is not for 
everyone. In any case I thought I'd comment:


In Apache OpenOffice we considered the same situation with GTK, and the
general consensus at the time is that GTK was to be considered a system
library. Our function in OpenOffice was not to create a graphics toolkit
so the consideration seemed appropriate. We also just had to adapt to 
whatever set of tools each OS offers.


We did have a plan B: the enlightenment foundation libraries should
serve a similar purpose and are under a BSD license:

https://www.enlightenment.org/

I understand Webkit is mixed LGPL+BSD, getting a quality replacement
for that is probably not easy.

Pedro.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
> Hello;
>
> I am sad to see corinthia move outside the ASF. It looks like it's pretty
> late to change that and as someone said Apache is not for everyone. In any
> case I thought I'd comment:
>
> In Apache OpenOffice we considered the same situation with GTK, and the
> general consensus at the time is that GTK was to be considered a system
> library.

That's exactly the position I take on this issue and something I've been
giving as an advise to a few podlings.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Greg Stein]

On Sep 7, 2015 4:12 PM, "Jochen Theodorou"  wrote:
>...
> I am not sure that approach is realistic. I mean, if you say it must be
optional and not required, then there must be an existing alternative. And
that alternative must be not LGPL. If there is such a toolkit, then why not
go with that right away? The project has to manage its resources well.

Exactly. Without an alternative, then you have a pile of code that doesn't
meet any user expectations.

If it can be released as a library, for downstream users to produce an
editor, then okay. But an releasing an editor with no UI is kind of a
non-starter. :-(

Given the UI landscape, and its licensing, I can see why Corinthia would
like to host elsewhere. One day, we'll see some permissive UI libraries

Cheers,
-g

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> ...Both Bertrand and I have tried to become involved in this and help avert
> this melt-down

FWIW, I won't be able to do much email in the next few days, I'll try
to catchup with this once I'm more active again.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 07.09.2015 03:11, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

I can speak to the specific case.

The desire is to adopt Qt as the best-choice, most-cross-platform GUI
framework for Corinthia on the desktop.  The non-commercial,
open-source license for Qt is LGPL/GPL.  See
.

As I understand it, a second-thought alternative to full-up
dependence on Qt is to make an experimental implementation that
employs a wrapper API under which a Qt-specific integration layer is
introduced.  The Qt integration layer is meant to be optionally
replaceable by an alternative one and corresponding framework under
the wrapper API.  The wrapper API and integration layer for any
functionally-equivalent integration/replacement is TBD.  A cautionary
concern was raised about the prudence of having an
optional-replacement of an LGPL dependence rather than an
optionally-employable LGPL dependence.

No specific proposal or request for any sort of exception is at
legal-discuss or the LEGAL JIRA.


I am not sure that approach is realistic. I mean, if you say it must be 
optional and not required, then there must be an existing alternative. 
And that alternative must be not LGPL. If there is such a toolkit, then 
why not go with that right away? The project has to manage its resources 
well.


Also I am not fully understanding the problem I guess. It can't be 
source problem, as long as the LGPL source is not included. compiling 
against an public available LGPL source for dynamic linking itself can 
also not be the problem. I do see a problem in the distribution of the 
dynamic linked library. But if you do not distribute it and expect the 
system to have it, then it should be no deal breaker. I mean otherwise 
you could not compile against glibc or example.


And thinking this further... assuming QT is optional somehow. Why is it 
then suddenly ok to distribute it in the convenience binary? Imho it is 
not, even then.


Legal makes a difference for language/platform lgpl code. But why I 
don't understand. A ticket for LEGAL in that matter would be good, but I 
think that should be done by a member of the corinthia project. As I 
know legal, it will depend on the special case and there won't be a 
general answer.


bye blackdrag

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Ralph Goers]

I am in the same boat as Alex with regard to QT, but Apache Pivot also has a 
similar goal.

Ralph

> On Sep 7, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> Apologies if I’m way off base here as I’m not familiar with Corinthia or
> QT Editor.  If Corinthia were to  develop the web-based editor mentioned
> upthread and make that the preferred/recommended editor for the project,
> does that make the QT Editor optional enough for Apache?
> 
> Apache Flex is a UI Toolkit for web apps as well as
> desktop and mobile apps and the community is working on a version that
> outputs HTML/JS/CSS that can be consumed by Apache Cordova to target
> multiple platforms.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 9/7/15, 2:37 AM, "Greg Stein"  wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 7, 2015 4:12 PM, "Jochen Theodorou"  wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I am not sure that approach is realistic. I mean, if you say it must be
>> optional and not required, then there must be an existing alternative. And
>> that alternative must be not LGPL. If there is such a toolkit, then why
>> not
>> go with that right away? The project has to manage its resources well.
>> 
>> Exactly. Without an alternative, then you have a pile of code that doesn't
>> meet any user expectations.
>> 
>> If it can be released as a library, for downstream users to produce an
>> editor, then okay. But an releasing an editor with no UI is kind of a
>> non-starter. :-(
>> 
>> Given the UI landscape, and its licensing, I can see why Corinthia would
>> like to host elsewhere. One day, we'll see some permissive UI
>> libraries
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -g
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Alex Harui]

Apologies if I’m way off base here as I’m not familiar with Corinthia or
QT Editor.  If Corinthia were to  develop the web-based editor mentioned
upthread and make that the preferred/recommended editor for the project,
does that make the QT Editor optional enough for Apache?

Apache Flex is a UI Toolkit for web apps as well as
desktop and mobile apps and the community is working on a version that
outputs HTML/JS/CSS that can be consumed by Apache Cordova to target
multiple platforms.

-Alex

On 9/7/15, 2:37 AM, "Greg Stein"  wrote:

>On Sep 7, 2015 4:12 PM, "Jochen Theodorou"  wrote:
>>...
>> I am not sure that approach is realistic. I mean, if you say it must be
>optional and not required, then there must be an existing alternative. And
>that alternative must be not LGPL. If there is such a toolkit, then why
>not
>go with that right away? The project has to manage its resources well.
>
>Exactly. Without an alternative, then you have a pile of code that doesn't
>meet any user expectations.
>
>If it can be released as a library, for downstream users to produce an
>editor, then okay. But an releasing an editor with no UI is kind of a
>non-starter. :-(
>
>Given the UI landscape, and its licensing, I can see why Corinthia would
>like to host elsewhere. One day, we'll see some permissive UI
>libraries
>
>Cheers,
>-g

RE: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I can speak to the specific case.

The desire is to adopt Qt as the best-choice, most-cross-platform GUI framework 
for Corinthia on the desktop.  The non-commercial, open-source license for Qt 
is LGPL/GPL.  See <http://www.qt.io/download-open-source/>.

As I understand it, a second-thought alternative to full-up dependence on Qt is 
to make an experimental implementation that employs a wrapper API under which a 
Qt-specific integration layer is introduced.  The Qt integration layer is meant 
to be optionally replaceable by an alternative one and corresponding framework 
under the wrapper API.  The wrapper API and integration layer for any 
functionally-equivalent integration/replacement is TBD.  A cautionary concern 
was raised about the prudence of having an optional-replacement of an LGPL 
dependence rather than an optionally-employable LGPL dependence.  

No specific proposal or request for any sort of exception is at legal-discuss 
or the LEGAL JIRA.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Jochen Theodorou [mailto:blackd...@gmx.org] 
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 09:23
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, 
jani, louis, pmkelly

Am 06.09.2015 04:22, schrieb Dave Fisher:
[...]
> Also Apache needs a release policy for binaries that would allow the best 
> UX/UI API for the platform to be used even if it is GPL. If you have 
> subscribed to legal-discuss the last few months you know why that discussion 
> was impossible. If that can be worked out then at least it would help other 
> projects.

can you explain the case a bit? Do you link statically? What is the license?

bye blackdrag

-- 
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 06.09.2015 19:43, schrieb Peter Kelly:

On 6 Sep 2015, at 11:22 pm, Jochen Theodorou 
wrote:

Am 06.09.2015 04:22, schrieb Dave Fisher: [...]

Also Apache needs a release policy for binaries that would allow
the best UX/UI API for the platform to be used even if it is GPL.
If you have subscribed to legal-discuss the last few months you
know why that discussion was impossible. If that can be worked
out then at least it would help other projects.


can you explain the case a bit? Do you link statically? What is the
license?


We wanted to use Qt, the open source version of which is LGPL. All
other suitable candidates we could find were similar; GTK is LGPL,
and wxWidgets has a license that is very close to LGPL. We also
needed to use WebKit, regardless of the toolkit involved, and that is
(mostly I think) LGPL also.


I would have thought about wxWidgets as well... true the license is 
basically LGPL, but "works in binary form may be distributed on the 
user's own terms" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WxWidgets#License). I 
would assume that allows the binary to be Apache Licensed for example. 
But Webkit blows it up again, yes.




There was some debate about whether or not it was ok to write an
application which used Qt, though we did not propose including any of
the actual Qt source code in the release artefacts. It would be used
as an external library, dynamically linked, similar to how many
programs use glibc.


my position on this is, it is ok as long as qt is not part of the 
binary, since then it has to be part of the system... And I think you 
mean this as well. Though, I doubt that works for QT under windows. GTK+ 
maybe, once the windows runtime becomes available again.



An assertion was made in the discussion that if we cannot develop our
app without using Qt, it should not be part of the project (I assume
this same argument would have been made if we had chosen one of the
others above). Given that this app was a major component (though by
no means all) of what we planned to do, it seemed that if that
argument was valid (and I don’t think it was, but I’m still not
sure), we would have to do so outside of ASF.


I think it would be bad to have the UI and the functionality separate - 
even if the UI part would be so much bigger. But that would allow other 
applications to use it as library independent of the editor. But given, 
that you are supposed to build a community and that the community most 
likely will want to use the editor in the beginning... I find that 
decision reasonable. Is licensing the project under LGPL an option? 
Afaik apache does not like that very much, but could allow it.



There were numerous other factors involved with our design to resign,
mostly involving personal disputes among PPMC members which I won’t
get into here out of respect for all involved. But the discussion
about licensing and implications for the project was one of the
factors, and certainly caused a division in the community.


Personal disputes will happen, just belongs to life imho. For me the 
licensing problem would be enough to move away from apache in your 
case... if LPGPL is not option for the project.


[...]
bye blackdrag



--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Peter Kelly]

> On 6 Sep 2015, at 11:22 pm, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> 
> Am 06.09.2015 04:22, schrieb Dave Fisher:
> [...]
>> Also Apache needs a release policy for binaries that would allow the best 
>> UX/UI API for the platform to be used even if it is GPL. If you have 
>> subscribed to legal-discuss the last few months you know why that discussion 
>> was impossible. If that can be worked out then at least it would help other 
>> projects.
> 
> can you explain the case a bit? Do you link statically? What is the license?

We wanted to use Qt, the open source version of which is LGPL. All other 
suitable candidates we could find were similar; GTK is LGPL, and wxWidgets has 
a license that is very close to LGPL. We also needed to use WebKit, regardless 
of the toolkit involved, and that is (mostly I think) LGPL also.

There was some debate about whether or not it was ok to write an application 
which used Qt, though we did not propose including any of the actual Qt source 
code in the release artefacts. It would be used as an external library, 
dynamically linked, similar to how many programs use glibc.

An assertion was made in the discussion that if we cannot develop our app 
without using Qt, it should not be part of the project (I assume this same 
argument would have been made if we had chosen one of the others above). Given 
that this app was a major component (though by no means all) of what we planned 
to do, it seemed that if that argument was valid (and I don’t think it was, but 
I’m still not sure), we would have to do so outside of ASF.

There were numerous other factors involved with our design to resign, mostly 
involving personal disputes among PPMC members which I won’t get into here out 
of respect for all involved. But the discussion about licensing and 
implications for the project was one of the factors, and certainly caused a 
division in the community.

If it’s not possible to write apps using LGPL libraries as part of apache 
projects, then this seems to pretty much rule out any cross-platform native 
desktop apps, unless you write your own toolkit. I realise OpenOffice has it’s 
own custom toolkit which is still used for historical reasons, but I don’t 
think that can adapt well to mobile platforms, so other than that that there 
don’t seem to be any viable choices which could work with the policy.

—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmke...@apache.org

PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key 
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Ralph Goers]

Licensing is always a thorny issue.  

In general, http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional 
 says that you can use 
libraries under licenses such as the LGPL for optional dependencies. This is so 
that user’s can use your project in its base mode with no “surprises”.

However, if the library is something that you would expect to be already 
installed on the platform(s) you support that is a different story. See 
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#platform 
.

If someone can take your work, modify it, and then attach whatever license they 
want to the combined work then whatever you are doing is probably OK. 

Ralph



> On Sep 6, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Peter Kelly  wrote:
> 
>> On 6 Sep 2015, at 11:22 pm, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
>> 
>> Am 06.09.2015 04:22, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> [...]
>>> Also Apache needs a release policy for binaries that would allow the best 
>>> UX/UI API for the platform to be used even if it is GPL. If you have 
>>> subscribed to legal-discuss the last few months you know why that 
>>> discussion was impossible. If that can be worked out then at least it would 
>>> help other projects.
>> 
>> can you explain the case a bit? Do you link statically? What is the license?
> 
> We wanted to use Qt, the open source version of which is LGPL. All other 
> suitable candidates we could find were similar; GTK is LGPL, and wxWidgets 
> has a license that is very close to LGPL. We also needed to use WebKit, 
> regardless of the toolkit involved, and that is (mostly I think) LGPL also.
> 
> There was some debate about whether or not it was ok to write an application 
> which used Qt, though we did not propose including any of the actual Qt 
> source code in the release artefacts. It would be used as an external 
> library, dynamically linked, similar to how many programs use glibc.
> 
> An assertion was made in the discussion that if we cannot develop our app 
> without using Qt, it should not be part of the project (I assume this same 
> argument would have been made if we had chosen one of the others above). 
> Given that this app was a major component (though by no means all) of what we 
> planned to do, it seemed that if that argument was valid (and I don’t think 
> it was, but I’m still not sure), we would have to do so outside of ASF.
> 
> There were numerous other factors involved with our design to resign, mostly 
> involving personal disputes among PPMC members which I won’t get into here 
> out of respect for all involved. But the discussion about licensing and 
> implications for the project was one of the factors, and certainly caused a 
> division in the community.
> 
> If it’s not possible to write apps using LGPL libraries as part of apache 
> projects, then this seems to pretty much rule out any cross-platform native 
> desktop apps, unless you write your own toolkit. I realise OpenOffice has 
> it’s own custom toolkit which is still used for historical reasons, but I 
> don’t think that can adapt well to mobile platforms, so other than that that 
> there don’t seem to be any viable choices which could work with the policy.
> 
> —
> Dr Peter M. Kelly
> pmke...@apache.org
> 
> PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key 
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
> 

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Branko Čibej]

On 06.09.2015 19:43, Peter Kelly wrote:
> If it’s not possible to write apps using LGPL libraries as part of apache 
> projects,

I expect you did get to read this page:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

It explains why we cannot include code under certain libraries in our
releases. It's fine to have optional dependencies on code under one of
these licenses, such that the user can include them when they build
binaries from our sources. But "optional" means that the absence of such
a module doesn't affect the core functionality. If the core
functionality is to be a user interface, then you'd have to find an
appropriately-licenses UI toolkit.

I'm not aware of any such toolkit that's compatible with ALv2 ... which
is a  bit of a pain.


-- Brane

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Jochen Theodorou]

Am 06.09.2015 04:22, schrieb Dave Fisher:
[...]

Also Apache needs a release policy for binaries that would allow the best UX/UI 
API for the platform to be used even if it is GPL. If you have subscribed to 
legal-discuss the last few months you know why that discussion was impossible. 
If that can be worked out then at least it would help other projects.


can you explain the case a bit? Do you link statically? What is the license?

bye blackdrag

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Peter Kelly]

> On 7 Sep 2015, at 1:17 am, Branko Čibej  wrote:
> 
> On 06.09.2015 19:43, Peter Kelly wrote:
>> If it’s not possible to write apps using LGPL libraries as part of apache 
>> projects,
> 
> I expect you did get to read this page:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> 
> It explains why we cannot include code under certain libraries in our
> releases. It's fine to have optional dependencies on code under one of
> these licenses, such that the user can include them when they build
> binaries from our sources. But "optional" means that the absence of such
> a module doesn't affect the core functionality. If the core
> functionality is to be a user interface, then you'd have to find an
> appropriately-licenses UI toolkit.
> 
> I'm not aware of any such toolkit that's compatible with ALv2 ... which
> is a  bit of a pain.

Indeed. And I did read that page at the time and come away with an 
understanding that’s essentially what you explained, though I think the page 
could be a lot clearer (a direct statement like “You cannot link against LGPL 
libraries” would go a long way to avoiding ambiguity).

My hope (and those of some others on the project) was that we could make our 
editor app an optional component - there are other parts of the project which 
are very much useful in and of themselves. The Qt editor is only part of what 
we had planned (or I should say, have planned, since we’re still going ahead 
with it, just outside of ASF), but we also were working on a web-based editor 
which would not use any LGPL code or that of any other incompatible licenses.

The policy raises the rather tricky question of what can reasonably be 
considered “optional”. For a project with say three components, one of which 
inherently requires an LGPL library, should the latter considered optional? 
Arguments could be made in both ways, but on balance, I suspect probably not.

LGPL allows use in commercial applications, and e.g. WebKit (which is LGPL) has 
been used in Safari, Chrome, and countless other closed-source projects. I sort 
of understand the reasoning behind it’s prohibition; I don’t agree with it, but 
nonetheless it’s considered a resolved issue. I wish I’d realised this coming 
into incubator, since we’d planned a Qt component from the start, but it’s not 
the end of the world - the project will continue on GitHub, where we are free 
as a community to make our own decisions about such matters.

—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmke...@apache.org

PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key 
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Ted Dunning]

Both Bertrand and I have tried to become involved in this and help avert
this melt-down. There is clearly quite a lot of back-channel happening that
is not visible to the Apache mailing lists and I (and apparently Bertrand)
have been unable to get our sub requests moderated through in time.

It may be that working with Apache processes is not what the majority of
the project wanted as part of their project. Apache is definitely not for
everybody.

I am very sorry to see this happen in this fashion, however. Splits can
happen amicably and do not require high drama. I will continue to try to
piece together what the best course of action is over the next few days
(holiday be damned) and hope that I can get the help of others as well.



On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 4:42 AM, jan i  wrote:

> Hereby the official notice that multiple developers have left apache
> Corinthia.
>
> I am sad that I as (former) mentor, was not able to keep the community in
> apache. A little constructive support from the IPMC had probably prevented
> the meltdown.
>
> The developer community continues the teamwork in a new home.
>
> rgds
> jan i.
>

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[jan i]

On Saturday, September 5, 2015, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> Both Bertrand and I have tried to become involved in this and help avert
> this melt-down. There is clearly quite a lot of back-channel happening that
> is not visible to the Apache mailing lists and I (and apparently Bertrand)
> have been unable to get our sub requests moderated through in time.

To be quite blunt, you have a strange way of getting involved, why totally
ignore the recommendations from the mentors and the development team and
instead try to piece together everything yourself. Did you talk with Dave ?

The reaaignations was sent from each person to private@, the notice is
simple to normal apache conclusion of the resigning, so please do not
accuse the development team of not following rules. It is not illegal for
people to talk together, decisions must be on the ML, and they are.

without telling what happened on private@ i.a.o, I feel you should have
acted when the mentors asked for help, instead of suggesting to reboot the
mentors.

As noted elsewhere, I saw the request from bertrand and he had access
within an hour, I never saw yours (Dennis is also moderator, so he
should/can have seen it), so I do not understand the delay.


>
> It may be that working with Apache processes is not what the majority of
> the project wanted as part of their project. Apache is definitely not for
> everybody.


This is wrong thinking, I have not heard one of the developers being
unwilling to follow apache rules quite the opposite, please read the ML and
you will see how often e.g. Peter have stated that.

To be very honest the IPMC have had plenty of time to react on the call
from Dave and Me, but decided to react differently. There was a
reason why I resigned as mentor, it was not because I did not want to help
the community, but because the IPMC told me quite clearly how wrong I
was...and just maybe that was the drop that caused the resignations.

Corinthia had a healthy development community, and IPMC decided to ignore
that and support what was seen as a strange interpretor of the apache
rules. Dave told that it would happen and so did I, so you cannot be
surprised.


>
> I am very sorry to see this happen in this fashion, however. Splits can
> happen amicably and do not require high drama. I will continue to try to
> piece together what the best course of action is over the next few days
> (holiday be damned) and hope that I can get the help of others as well.


> I had very high hopes for this project in apache, both because I believe
in the project and in Apache, but I am not alone in saying, the attitude of
the IPMC is disapointing.

It is fine that you and bertrand goes in to help, but it would have been
great if you had supported the mentors and believed what we as mentors told
IPMC.

Sorry for a strong mail, but seeing a Podling go down the drain for
something that should be logical caused me to respond like this.

Rgds
jan i.



>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 4:42 AM, jan i >
> wrote:
>
> > Hereby the official notice that multiple developers have left apache
> > Corinthia.
> >
> > I am sad that I as (former) mentor, was not able to keep the community in
> > apache. A little constructive support from the IPMC had probably
> prevented
> > the meltdown.
> >
> > The developer community continues the teamwork in a new home.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan i.
> >
>


-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:36 PM, jan i  wrote:

> As noted elsewhere, I saw the request from bertrand and he had access
> within an hour, I never saw yours (Dennis is also moderator, so he
> should/can have seen it), so I do not understand the delay.

Ted is doing what he can, and it's only been a few days. We are all
volunteers and do not always have the freedom to drop what we are
doing to give Incubator matters our full attention.

> To be very honest the IPMC have had plenty of time to react on the call
> from Dave and Me, but decided to react differently. There was a
> reason why I resigned as mentor, it was not because I did not want to help
> the community, but because the IPMC told me quite clearly how wrong I
> was...and just maybe that was the drop that caused the resignations.

What I wish everyone involved would strive to remember is that
personnel conflicts are inherently difficult and draining, that
mistakes are often made and responses often poorly calibrated, and
that there are real people receiving these emails who may experience
intense emotions as they read them.

PS: Surely this response is imperfect as well.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Ted Dunning]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
wrote:

> PS: Surely this response is imperfect as well.
>

Such imperfections are not visible to humans.

At the least, it is pretty damned good.  Thanks.

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Marvin,

Very true. I am sorry that we did not come to the IPMC sooner. Perhaps after my 
second attempt to cool things. Maybe a mentor should use frustration to 
determine when ask for help. Maybe it should not be private@. What if there was 
a mentor@ private ML explicitly for this help? Mentor confidential.

I think the Incubator being separate from ComDev may also be an issue. It can 
take time to grow a community and learn the balance between policy and pace of 
conversation. Apache can not be only policy. To many in the podling it began to 
feel like that - only policy. People asked for that to cool.

Also Apache needs a release policy for binaries that would allow the best UX/UI 
API for the platform to be used even if it is GPL. If you have subscribed to 
legal-discuss the last few months you know why that discussion was impossible. 
If that can be worked out then at least it would help other projects.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 5, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:36 PM, jan i  wrote:
>> 
>> As noted elsewhere, I saw the request from bertrand and he had access
>> within an hour, I never saw yours (Dennis is also moderator, so he
>> should/can have seen it), so I do not understand the delay.
> 
> Ted is doing what he can, and it's only been a few days. We are all
> volunteers and do not always have the freedom to drop what we are
> doing to give Incubator matters our full attention.
> 
>> To be very honest the IPMC have had plenty of time to react on the call
>> from Dave and Me, but decided to react differently. There was a
>> reason why I resigned as mentor, it was not because I did not want to help
>> the community, but because the IPMC told me quite clearly how wrong I
>> was...and just maybe that was the drop that caused the resignations.
> 
> What I wish everyone involved would strive to remember is that
> personnel conflicts are inherently difficult and draining, that
> mistakes are often made and responses often poorly calibrated, and
> that there are real people receiving these emails who may experience
> intense emotions as they read them.
> 
> PS: Surely this response is imperfect as well.
> 
> Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org