incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:05:28 GMT
I take Rob to mean that he has to deflect that kind of conversation.  And he probably has to
think about distancing himself from such conversations of others.  Perhaps he could be better
at it.  Does it really matter? (Not being a corporate employee of any flavor, I consider myself
free to speak on this.)

Of course, others can talk about divisions of labor or whatever, but I think the Apache processes
are safeguard enough.  Pontifications about who is upstream/downstream and what the relationship
and collaborations are don't matter.  (It is patently obvious that Apache *can't* be downstream
from LibreOffice.  As heads-of-state like to say, all other options are on the table.)

The only way this gets interesting, with regard to LibreOffice at any rate, would be if the
Apache Incubator project declined to accept the proposal.  Then we can see how that works
out for all concerned parties.  (I am not advocating that turn of events and I don't have
a vote in any case.)

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Thiebaud [] 
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 21:45
Subject: Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:
> The problem here is that Rob and Sam and other well-known employees 
> are being addressed as IBM employees here

I perceive Sam answers and arguments to be consistent with the 'I am an individual member
of Apache' position. I may disagree with his arguments or positions, but at least they are
consistent with the framework posited.

I certainly cannot say the same for many of Rob's post...

>[..]They can operate as individuals but they must also honor the requirements on their
conduct that are a consequence of their employment.

and shall I emphasis:

Rob Weir said:
>There are some things we must not talk about, especially things where 
>competitors may be seen as arranging to reduce competition.  We need to 
>steer the conversation far from this.

_we_ here means who ? I understood it, by default, to mean _we_ AF member and by extensions
the guests (like me) on this list....
Am I to understand that AP members are bound by what-ever contractual obligation Rob may or
may not have with IBM ?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message