incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Russell <>
Subject Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)
Date Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:01:04 GMT
Hi Greg,

> On Jun 19, 2019, at 12:17 AM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean < <>>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
>> Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus.
> A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no"
> outcome. Thus, it is specious on its face.
>> But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record in
>> the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation.
> That was already established and recorded in the Zipkin community, with
> their vote to depart.
>> Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a mentor
>> called the vote and I respect their decision to do so.
> Which mentor? Sheng Wu? Bullied into holding a vote?
> Or maybe from the private@incubator list, the one who said "I would say we
> should take a discuss/vote in general@incubator to retire the podling".

As the author os that statement I stand by it.

> That is simply participating in IPMC overreach.

You may characterize the existing process as overreach. I characterize it as making sure that
we have consensus before we take irreversible actions in the Apache realm (moving repositories,
removing podling infrastructure, etc.)

> It is a sign of disrespect
> for the Zipkin community, that the IPMC has "final say" and requires a vote
> to (ahem) "allow them to leave".

The IPMC does have final say on the disposition of Apache assets related to the community's
decision to leave.

> The IPMC is NOT in control of communities.

The vote is not in any sense trying to control communities. It is to formalize the decision
to update Apache assets to reflect the community's decision.

> It is foolish to believe so, and to construct "procedures" and "policy" and
> "bureaucracy" to pretend so.
> I'm fine stating all this nonsensical behavior in public.

Well, I strongly disagree with the characterization of the process as nonsensical.

And I would like to suggest that words like these:


Do Not Help with civil discourse. I understand your passion on the subject but I'd like you
to disagree without using such language. 


> -g

Craig L Russell

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message