I'm also a -0. I think osimons articulated my feeling better than I could.
Ben On Jan 2, 2012 10:27 AM, "osimons" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Dec 31 2011, 5:57 pm, Ethan Jucovy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On the Apache Incubator list I was advised: > > > > "At this point, I would recommend that you hold a vote on the appropriate > > Trac mailing list regarding approving or disapproving a fork and then > > forwarding that here. If the existing community doesn't want a fork I > > would suspect the incubator PMC would require the bloodhound project not > to > > start from one." > > > > Therefore I would like to hold a vote to collect opinions on the question > > of forking Trac into an Apache Foundation Subversion repository, with the > > new code to be added under an Apache license. > > > > The purpose of this vote is to collect Trac community sentiments about a > > fork, and about whether we would like the Apache-licensed Bloodhound > > project to start from a fork of Trac. The alternative would be for the > > Apache-licensed Bloodhound project to start with a dependency on the Trac > > core, and to consist of Apache-licensed plugins and/or installers. > > > > Please vote +1 (in favor of fork), -1 (against a fork) , +0 (no strong > > opinion but would rather see a fork) or -0 (no strong opinion but would > > rather not see a fork) if you are interested. I will reference the > results > > of this thread in an email to the Apache Incubator list. > > This is obviously not a proper vote - it is more a poll to summarize > sentiments of the Trac development community. In that spirit, here is > what I think of the fork-to-Apache issue: > > -0 > > As mentioned before, I wish that this process had been very different. > But as David Richards of WANdisco said in the previous Trac & > Bloodhound thread: "...we decided that our contribution should be as > part of a larger, independent entity." [1] Despite their best efforts > to herald their arrival as the white knights coming to save the Trac > community, I think that every decision they made so far have the > opposite effect. The fact that the Trac community can't even directly > reuse their future (potential) source code changes due to licensing > issues just feels like an insult. > > All in all, I am surprised that they already managed to get the Apache > stamp of approval to "re-build the [Trac] developer community" [2]. > When I was still waiting for them to articulate a plan for the > improved software (or even start to deliver code), they plowed ahead > and got their merit badges. It obviously changes Trac community > dynamics. > > That said, I'm "-0" as I don't feel it is right to "-1" this. Trac is > BSD-licensed and it is everyones right to fork Trac if they really > want to. I think it is a shame that it forks in this way and not as a > regular git/hg project fork, but as an open source developer I will > never disapprove of others exercising rights that I have granted them. > Even forking the community is perfectly valid as there are no > particular strings tying any of us here. It is their right to fork, > and I don't have to like it. > > > :::simon > > http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/osimons > https://www.coderesort.com > > [1] http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev/msg/5bc628afdd5a4ff3 > [2] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BloodhoundProposal > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Trac Development" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en.
