If Craig doesn't want to associate with a project if certain individuals are involved, I think his wishes as a committer should be respected. The policy for posting links should be to allow all links that committers are willing to add and exclude links that any committer finds repugnant in any way.
-----Original Message----- From: Craig R. McClanahan To: Struts Developers List Sent: 11/13/2003 10:56 PM Subject: Re: cvs commit: veto Quoting Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -1 > > The community can make up its own mind on issues regarding an > individual's behavior. > Like any commit to change software, other committers can -1 them for valid reasons. > I formally ask that any product changes made for the sole purpose of > censoring an individual be reversed, with the exception of consultants > and powered, which pages can be removed completely as they are obsolete. > My view of Vic's technical judgement and capabilities is probably pretty clear from prior message threads. His behavior in other forums recently, and this time in particular (presuming that an allegation is true without a determination of the actual facts, and then presenting it as reality instead of perception) is ethically repugnant to me, and calls his professional judgement into question. This is so to the degree that I cannot in good conscience participate in a project willing to publish links to companies whose principals behave in such a manner. To address Ted's (legitimate) concern, I would prefer that we adopt a more stringent (but one that can be administered based on reasonably objective criteria) policy on Struts website content -- no advertisements of *any* commercial resources related to Struts. Google does a far better job than we could ever do in making such resources available, and this would avoid the need for any judgement calls or unfair advantage to some commercial entities over others. Announcements about nonprofit activities (user group meetings), freely available presentations/demos/slides about Struts, or other open source software that works with Struts, would still be reasonable candidates for inclusion. Note that I'm suggesting this approach just for the website (and therefore the snapshots that get included in the product by virtue of the way we create struts-documentation.war). The current policy towards postings on the mailing lists can remain the same -- the distinction is that it is clear who is speaking (presuming it's not an email virus forging the from address :-), and there is no opportunity for mistakenly assuming endorsement. Implementing this policy would require a few more excisions to the Struts web site (and save Ted some work in the long run, since he does most of the "routine update" work), but not horrendously large amounts. The most visible change would probably be the list of books on the front page and the associated books.html page, since they are all commercial activities. I agree with Ted on the "consultants" and "powered" pages. Ted, would this deal with the criteria of your -1? > -Ted. Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
