On Jul 1, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> On 1 Jul 2011, at 18:13, Stefane Fermigier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 July 2011 13:54, Stefane Fermigier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I think your time spent arguing with false (cargo-cult) logic or bogus
>> information (see below - the various links you give to support your position
>> are bogus) is not only worthless, but counterproductive.
>
> As a mentor it is my job to e sure that the project learns best practice in
> the ASF.
1. There is a difference between "best practice" and "mandatory practice". You
seem to imply that the former implies the later, but that is not true. And for
me the later implies that there is a written rule somewhere, which is not the
case.
2. What you seem to consider a best practice in the ASF is not a best practice
in other organization we are member of (Eclipse Foundation or OW2). So this is
a really relative notion.
3. The logic behind your assertion ("all projects at Apache that are successful
follow this practice, hence you have to follow this practice to be successful")
is wrong for at least two reasons:
a. This is a basic sophism (all A's are B's doesn't imply that to be A you have
to be B)
b. There are successful projects outside Apache who don't follow the practice.
> Two mentors have mad the same assertions.
Two opinions don't make a fact.
> You can close not to accept out opinion, we are mentors.
I'm very open to others opinions. I'm not open to opinions that are presented
as facts. And the fact that I'm open to others opinions doesn't imply that I
necessarily agree with them.
> However you cannot refuse to listen and claim we are wasting time. I find
> this offensive and disrespectful.
As I wrote, besides the pure logical fallacy of your reasoning, you've said
that "Partners are expected to do their own due diligence" (BTW: what do you
mean by "partners"? I thought there were only individuals, not companies, for
the ASF?), but when I asked you to send links to the information we were
supposed to find as part of our due diligence, you send only irrelevant links.
I personally find offensive and disrespectful that you refuse to acknowledge
the 10 MEUR investment on this project by the EC and the partners by claiming
that "all contributors are volunteers" (we're not - we have a contractual
obligation to work on this project), and the
> We have told you how and where you can escalate this if you think we are not
> accurately representing the view of the ASF as a whole.
This is not the question I'm asking. The question is not wether the ASF has a
*view*, it's wether it has a (documented) *policy*.
> You have refused to do so, instead accusing us of wasting your time.
Indeed. I don't care about the ASF's view as long as it has no impact on my
life (well, I care about it, but not enough to take the time to try to change
it).
> Take it to the general list. If you are able to gather sufficient consensus
> for your position then you with find both Bertrand and I will back down.
Obviously the chances of me changing the opinion of a mailing list which is
largely outside our group is very weak. I prefer to swipe by own doorstep and
so I have no interest in pursuing this endeavor.
>>> To get there you need to adopt the successful model developed here at
>>> the ASF and engaged with by many companies that have a considerably
>>> higher investment in ASF projects than you do. The model works. It's
>>> not perfect and it sometimes evolves. If you ant to try and have this
>>> specific part of it evolve then take it to the wider community.
>>
>> Nope. That's not my job nor my priority.
>
> It's your job to make Stanbol a success.
Indeed. Nothing more, and specially not change the ASF's view on the nofollow
link policy.
> Here in the ASF that means more than writing code. It means making the
> project sustainable through our tried and tested development model. You have
> mentors to help guide you so that if you choose to focus only on code you can
> do so.
Guiding is not commanding.
>>> Why are you so much better than everyone else around here? (rhetorical
>>> question)
>>
>> Obviously I'm not since, as Bertrand stated, I'm only a PPMC (whatever that
>> means) and PPMCs are 2 steps down the food chain below board members.
>
> There is no food chain. Bertrands position on the board is irrelevant here in
> this community.
Well, he's the one who brought it in the discussion, not me, so I was assuming
he meant that Board members had more power than foot soldiers.
> He is a Stanbol committer and mentor only - one with a great deal of
> experience that is worth listening to,
I listen to Bertrand every time he speaks. Sometimes, rarely, I don't agree
with him, mostly because we have different priorities, not because I think he's
stupid.
> but a mentor and a committed only.
>
>>
>
>>
>>>>> It is standard practice across the ASF to *not* provide follow links.
>>>>
>>>> Standard by written nowhere, as far as I can tell (and Google).
>>>
>>> It's true that the ASF can be poor at formally documenting things, we
>>> tend to rely on precedent and experience, that's why we have mentors.
>>> To help guide you in the way to succeed as an ASF project.
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/search/list:apache+link+nofollow
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/search/list:incubator+link+nofollow
>>
>> These two searches don't link to anything that seem to have any
>> authoritative value (like a board decision).
>
> The board does not make decision for the projects. It helps guide them and
> handles foundation business, but it does not make decisions like this.
Who does then ? And where is it documented ?
>>> I'm done arguing. I've stated my position as a mentor, as has
>>> Bertrand. A sensible proposal has been made that Bertrand has
>>> explicitly supported (and I implicitly support by not objecting to
>>> it).
>>
>> Which one? Putting nofollow on the links or not?
>
> There should be nofollow links.
-1
>
>>
>> Since yours and Bertrand's position is to add rel=nofollow on the links, and
>> since I don't agree with this position, let's vote.
>
> Why not make some space for the community to express their opinion first.
>
>> Now, as a mentor, can you explain us again (or point to a document which
>> explains) how to conduct a vote ?
>
> You could start at http://community.apache.org/committers/index.html
>
> That gives a high level overview and links to other more detailed docs.
Thanks. Now I see that you have been even more misleading with you previous
emails than I thought.
The document http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html which is
linked from this document doesn't say that we're not allowed to give credit to
the companies or organizations that are supporting / financing the projects. It
only speaks about governance, which is a different matter.
Also note this sentence "It is important for the longevity and community health
of our projects that they get the appropriate credit for producing our freely
available software." Obviously, by denying our project the appropriate credit,
you're harming the longevity and community health of this project.
>>> - if the majority of the community
>>> is happy with the proposal then this discussion is pointless.
>>
>> I'm assuming you're talking about the Stanbol community here. So +1.
>
> So please allow the community to speak before calling vote. That's not the
> best way to make decisions. See the links from the page above.
What's the best way then ? Hopefully not "shut up and listen to your mentors".
Then once again, by admitting that we can make a decision at the project level,
you're considerably weakening your assertion that "this is the Apache way and
you have to follow the rule" (paraphrasing).
S.
--
Stefane Fermigier, Founder and Chairman, Nuxeo
Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM)
http://www.nuxeo.com/ - +33 1 40 33 79 87 - http://twitter.com/sfermigier
Join the Nuxeo Group on LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/groups?gid=43314
New Nuxeo release: http://nuxeo.com/dm54
"There's no such thing as can't. You always have a choice."
