Hi all,
in the light of:
- http://www.netcrucible.com/blog/ ("The whole Apache project is
impressive in the spirit of the pre-bubble open-source projects, but
Apache's heavy dependence on BigCo funding (IBM, Sun, etc.) kind of
disqualifies them and spoils the romance.")
Sam's rebutal (sort of)
According to Steven Noels:
> - http://www.netcrucible.com/blog/ ("The whole Apache project is
> impressive in the spirit of the pre-bubble open-source projects, but
> Apache's heavy dependence on BigCo funding (IBM, Sun, etc.) kind of
> disqualifies them and spoils the romance.")
Well, that'
Steven Noels wrote:
I was wondering what might be true (or FUD) about this BigCo funding. Or
even worse: are accounting records available? Of course, one might
wonder whether such details should be made available to non-members.
OTOH, I don't like seeing such statements when you know, from the
insi
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> According to Steven Noels:
>
> > - http://www.netcrucible.com/blog/ ("The whole Apache project is
> > impressive in the spirit of the pre-bubble open-source projects, but
> > Apache's heavy dependence on BigCo funding (IBM, Sun, etc.) kind of
> > d
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
According to Steven Noels:
- http://www.netcrucible.com/blog/ ("The whole Apache project is
impressive in the spirit of the pre-bubble open-source projects, but
Apache's heavy dependence on BigCo funding (IBM, Sun, etc.) kind of
disqualifies them and spoils the romance."
Steven Noels wrote about BigCo take over rumors.
I get that question pretty regularly these days. Big firms tend to
think of the world in terms of what other big firms control - so
understanding it's part of a mindset helps. It is hard for people of
that mind set to understand that cooperative
He cannot take it up on community@ -- that list is closed as well.
He's not a committer.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
Folks,
Open & Closedness of the ASF
This is a very useful and valuable discussion - but this is not the right
place. I'd really encourage you folks to pick up the thread again
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Ben Hyde wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Andy gave ... and Ben Hyde admin access.
Wires got crossed someplace and that didn't come to closure. It's
been
a while but it maybe that it stumbled at the get account on nagoya
You don't need a nagoya account to do it.
Possibly, mayb
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> He cannot take it up on community@ -- that list is closed as well.
> He's not a committer.
Though. But that is not an @infrastructure problem.
If the community decides to have a different moderation on community@ or
new mailing list with differen
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
He cannot take it up on community@ -- that list is closed as well.
He's not a committer.
My memory can be very bad, but I believe we said community@ could also
be 'by invitation'. Given Tim's pertinent remarks and apparent genuine
interest in our operations, we could allo
Ben,
>>> I continue to believe that the wiki should be per PMC.
>> Responsibility for oversight of content? I agree.
> which would requires some reengineering.
>> ... search across the federated wikispace is a good thing.
>useful input to whom ever grabs the reengineering knife.
Agreed. I'm pret
> Our project is getting value out of the Wiki, in part because we have
> non-Committers feeling empowered and able to contribute directly.
People can do the same with patches on mailing list; and seem less likely
to abuse that. Perhaps the simple validation (and display) of a valid
email address
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The control loops on the current wiki are _way_ too open loop and the
resulting systems is prone creating ear damaging noises. This is not
a bad-thing(tm) and likely to lay waste to the good-thing(tm).
How would you amend the process?
The life of a dyslexic is full of surpri
> The life of a dyslexic is full of surprises. That should have read
> "This is a bad-thing(tm).."
I had figured as much from the earlier part of the paragraph. :-)
> I assume that as soon as we create per PMC Wiki those PMC would
> discover that they have pride of craft in the content of that
> People can do the same with patches on mailing list; and seem less likely
> to abuse that. Perhaps the simple validation (and display) of a valid
> email address may do the trick.
You are concerned about abuse. I don't disagree, but the mailing lists are
also capable of being abused. I would n
Is there a uniform release policy for the ASF? For example, here are two
documents:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html
"Technically, any one can make a release of the source code due to the
Apache Software License. However, only members of the Apache HTTP Server
Project (committers) to p
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
Our project is getting value out of the Wiki, in part because we
have non-Committers feeling empowered and able to contribute
directly.
People can do the same with patches on mailing list; and seem less
likely to abuse that. Perhaps the simple validation (and displa
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:55:33AM -0500, Ben Hyde wrote:
>...
> > are accounting records available?
>
> I thought there were, I know we discussed having them be public in the
> first year. It maybe that some reason arose to keep them underwraps.
> The short form though is they wouldn't help r
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 07:55:45PM +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> > Our project is getting value out of the Wiki, in part because we have
> > non-Committers feeling empowered and able to contribute directly.
>
> People can do the same with patches on mailing list; and seem less likely
>
- Original Message -
From: "O'brien, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions
about wiki
( Note: I'm only writing you two only because Greg, you
Sorry if this has been discussed before (I just subscribed), but I don't
understand why community@apache.org would be a closed list. We have
plenty of other places in the ASF to discuss private issues (board@,
members@, pmc@, committers@ for announcements, etc). It is hard for me to
think of any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "O'brien, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions
about wiki
( Note: I'm only writing you two o
> From: Joshua Slive [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:37 PM
> Sorry if this has been discussed before (I just subscribed), but I don't
> understand why community@apache.org would be a closed list. We have
> plenty of other places in the ASF to discuss private issues
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
> community@ is the only ASF wide list that is opt-in and not bound to
> a certain topic (like infrastructure@ for example). committers@ always
> reaches _all_ committers if they want to participate or not. So that
> list is not an option.
The fact tha
Welcome to the minority, Joshua. :)
- Morgan
--- Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
> > community@ is the only ASF wide list that is
> opt-in and not bound to
> > a certain topic (like infrastructure@ for
> example). committers@ always
> > re
Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
> > community@ is the only ASF wide list that is opt-in and not bound to
> > a certain topic (like infrastructure@ for example). committers@ always
> > reaches _all_ committers if they want to participate or not
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> We did NOT vote to close the list. We voted to limit access to
> committers AND INVITED participants. If Andrew does not wish
> to INVITE Tim's participation, it is _Andrew_ who is blocking Tim's
> access here.
That is not an open list. A country club
> a friend of the court brief for the "Board vs. Wiki".
Board vs. Wiki? That's somewhat amusing in its timing, considering that the
Chairman of the Board, as a private individual not in an official capacity,
(a) is the author of SubWiki, (b) posted a message to community@ in support
for Wiki use
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > People can do the same with patches on mailing list; and seem less likely
> > to abuse that.
> You are concerned about abuse. I don't disagree, but the mailing lists are
> also capable of being abused.
No sorry; I am _NOT_ worried by abuse at al
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
> > People can do the same with patches on mailing list; and seem less
> > likely to abuse that. Perhaps the simple validation (and display) of
> > a valid email address may do the trick.
>
> The combination of a Wiki (JSPWiki, which offers an XMLRPC inte
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I somewhat agree
that Wiki is not always the best place to discuss.
I don't think a Wiki is *ever* the best place to *discuss* something.
I see the following major purposes
1. Collaborate effort to write and improve documentation, tutorials,
examples etc. There should be
Hi Joshua,
in case you are interested in the vote, see below...
As far as I can recall the list was pretty busy at this time and some people worried
about the signal-to-noise ratio while thinking about 650 Apache fellows plus users or as
you put it "having a mechanism to quite people who make noi
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Sorry if this has been discussed before (I just subscribed), but I don't
> understand why community@apache.org would be a closed list. We have
> plenty of other places in the ASF to discuss private issues (board@,
> members@, pmc@, committers@ for anno
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
> >
> > ( Note: I'm only writing you two only because Greg, you are the Chairman of
> > the Board, and Andrew, you've been a proponent of Wiki. Since I only know
> > about a discussion secondhand, I can only imagine what is being discussed,
> > here's my
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > a friend of the court brief for the "Board vs. Wiki".
>
> Board vs. Wiki? That's somewhat amusing in its timing, considering that the
> Chairman of the Board, as a private individual not in an official capacity,
Tim: Bear in mind that in the ASF
> > > ( Note: I'm only writing you two only because Greg, you are the
Chairman of
> > > the Board, and Andrew, you've been a proponent of Wiki. Since I only
know
> > > about a discussion secondhand, I can only imagine what is being
discussed,
> > > here's my take. Also, Mr. Stein, just in case yo
[Forwarded with permission]
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> > > dealing with failed experiments (Hello Wiki :-) is
> > > not always a clean thing.
> > I do not consider [the Wiki] a failed experiment.
> Hmm - I certain
[This actually belongs to the "Open Community" thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh
well.]
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Though - and on a different topic - there is one thing nagging me here;
> and that is this concept that the 'public' has a 'right' to be involved in
> discussio
Noel,
> Beyond that, I'm sensing hostility that doesn't make any sense.
No hostility, and I hope you don't take offense at anything I've written.
Again, I didn't mean to start a fight.
I was just responding to a Wiki page posted this morning that mentioned that
discussions were occuring on bo
I have no idea of what the discussion is at community@, I'm not allowed to
subscribe to that list.
Again, I need to stress that I have no hostility towards anyone here. This
is a good discussion, I'm sorry if people felt that I was being over
dramatic. I'm responding, but I don't think that my e
40 matches
Mail list logo
