incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Upayavira">
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Rave project
Date Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:45:14 GMT
I think the concern is in a sense valid, but this particular proposal
doesn't seem to stand out for me in that regard.

On one level, Apache is about individual contributions. Having said
that, I wonder what would become of Apache if all corporate support of
committers' activities were banned.

Personally, the way I see it is that some devs at these companies met,
saw a need, put it to their management and got their management's
backing. Now, they're proposing to do some dev work on the project on
company time. I suspect that we'll see enthusiasm for the project
develop and show beyond the confines of the corporate need, but only
time will tell there.

That's my thoughts.


On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:25 -0800, "Troy Howard" <>
> My point was:
> Bill made a statement, which though rather neutral and ambiguous,
> seemed to indicate that he (or perhaps a silent mass of others) did
> not think the proposal was such a good idea, due to the risks
> associated with a significant amount of corporate support and
> involvement. At least, that's how I interpreted it. Since then, the
> response has been fairly one sided, supporting the project, and
> unfortunately, Bill has not responded to fairly direct questions about
> his intent or reasoning. I'd much rather be hearing more from him
> about this issue than continuing to express my opinions.
> In fact, some of the respondents have stated clearly that they missed
> his point. To me, his point is obvious. He's expressing that perhaps
> the known risks (which were accurately described in the proposal)
> might be significant enough that no one is willing to vocally support
> the proposal. Maybe they aren't significant enough to cause outcry,
> but significant enough to cause unspoken concerns and a lack of direct
> support because of it.
> Again, I don't agree with that opinion, but I also don't think it
> should be dismissed. So, supposing Bill does indeed have that assumed
> perspective, and supposing that it is a valid perspective, and that
> there may be other folks who aren't speaking up who have that
> perspective, my point was that, in good faith, the project make a
> concerted effort to address that concern, in the same way they would
> address issues with the code: by making a JIRA issue for it,
> scheduling it and resolving it.
> Now, back to my opinion... worthy or not as it may be.  Clearly a lack
> of response cannot be taken as positive or negative, a silent mass is
> just that -- silent. No consent nor dissent expressed. Is that
> sufficient to move forward? In this case, I think so, and I agree with
> Upayavira's initial statements. I doubt if there is a large group of
> people out there, silently disapproving and not speaking up. That's
> very un-Apache, and thus, very unlikely for this situation. More than
> likely, people are just too busy to give an encouraging word.
> But, if someone does give voice to a concern, shouldn't that be taken
> to heart? The responses I saw from Ross seemed dismissive, and that
> raised enough concern, from my point of view that I felt like typing
> up my opinion + solution, and hitting 'Send'. Assuming silent consent
> is fine, but being dismissive of a voiced concern is not. Again,
> that's my 'strong opinion, weakly held'.
> Honestly, I have already said far more about this topic than I had any
> intention to. Hopefully this lengthy message provides enough detail
> into the inner workings of my mind that it satisfies any further
> confusion as to what the heck I was talking about.
> Thanks,
> Troy
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <>
> wrote:
> > Troy, I am not really sure what your point is. So you believe that:
> >> I think the 'Known Risks' section in the proposal enumerates that
> >> pretty clearly, so I won't repeat it.
> >
> > ... yet you raise an objection for somebody else who might think otherwise?
> > Is that because you anticipate an objection and you want to prevent that by
> > suggesting a solution that my prevent the objection to occur in the first place?
> >> [...] My statements were meant to speak to
> >> the folks who think otherwise, as a reasonable compromise (assuming
> >> Bill's stance, and anyone who is quietly in agreement, is to not allow
> >> it into the Incubator).
> >
> > Why not let the guys who have an objection speak for themselves?
> >
> > Regarding Bill's message, I didn't see him raising an objection, just making a valid
> > Ate explained already both that it was addressed and the rationale for the wording
in the proposal.
> >
> >> I don't think my vote counts for much, but I'm a +1. ;)
> > Well, the vote is on now.
> >
> > If I misunderstood your intentions I am sorry, but they are not very clear.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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