incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator
Date Tue, 21 Jul 2015 22:47:08 GMT
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:33AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 2015-07-22 00:15, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Gruno <> wrote:
> >>Accusation of what exactly?
> >Quoting Roy out of context.
> >
> >Here's what you said: "Quoting Roy out of context is not a Hail Mary you can
> >just throw out there when someone disagrees with you."
> >
> >>To the best of my knowledge, Roy has not been a part of the Ignite
> >>discussion, nor is he quoting policy in that particular sentence, but
> >>stating his opinion that the published Incubator policy should be overlooked
> >>(to which I disagree). Yes, he explains in rigorous detail why he thinks the
> >>way he thinks, but that is still an _opinion_, and quoting it as if it is
> >>policy (our published policy still begs to differ) is something I will
> >>consider as being out of context,
> >Then you should've said "quoting it as if it is policy". Because you see:
> >    "quoting it as if it is policy" != "Quoting Roy out of context"
> >
> >Precision of language in contentious online discussions is of paramount
> >importance.
> >
> >This time I'll chalk up our misunderstanding to your sloppy use of language
> >in that particular sentence.
> I don't believe I was being sloppy in my use of language, but I
> don't want to turn this into a battle over which dictionary is the
> best, despite your counter-accusation of my sloppy verbal skills.
> >
> >Which brings us back to what you actually wanted to say, which is: "quoting it
> >as if it is policy". That was NOT my intent. My intent was to *highlight* what
> >I took as a very insightful statement made in discussion extremely similar
> >to the one we're having here 3 years after the original discussion.
> >
> >Roy's statement changed the way I think about ASF and IPMC. That was all I
> >was trying to communicate.
> Be that as it may, if people have concerns about it, and it's still
> in the policy docs, you either acknowledge and try your best to deal
> with these concerns, or you work to change the policy, preferably in
> a _separate channel_, you don't just dismiss it.

The guidelines - not the _policy_ mind you - says exactly this:

"A major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
meritocratic community."

So far there wasn't a single fact showing that the proposed podling has failed
to do this. If such facts aren't brought to the attention of the IPMC I'd
suggest we just drop the matter and/or move the further "policy" discussions to
a separate thread to establish the semantics of that statements, if so


> I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with whether it is the _right_
> policy, I am merely stating that it IS in our published policy and
> that concerns have been raised relating to this. This particular bit
> has nothing to do with Ignite, but graduation in general.
> With regards,
> Daniel.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Roman.
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message