incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: Forks without concensus?
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:57:19 GMT
Hey hey,

(Pff. I like replying in-line but this is a hard e-mail to reply to
in-line so I will top post.)

If I understand your policy question: will apache allow an incubating
community to show up and start a project when they are forking another

I'd say, in general, yes, probably, if all the other criteria we have
are satisfied.

But, well, what if that other project is open source already, and some
people don't want the fork to exist at apache? Well, then probably
something is "wrong" in the first place, and it needs to be
investigated. Why, otherwise would a group of people show up that want
to fork at all?

I think it quickly becomes a judgement call.

On the one hand, should apache try and avoid getting tangled up into a
complex mess just because it is complex and messy? No, I don't think
so. If anything, apache is supposed to be good at helping people sort
out their complex messes. If we have mentors willing and able to help,
let's try and help.

On the other hand, should apache make sure that it's considerable
weight is not mistakenly thrown behind an initiative that somehow goes
against our core values (an open, collaborative, consensus-based
process)? Absolutely.


So the generic policy is there is no generic policy, and instead there
is appropriate application of judgement to specific cases.



On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <> wrote:
> On 1/3/2012 11:14 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 2012 11:48 AM, "William A. Rowe Jr." <> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> A PMC I am on had this exact conversation with board members several
>>>>> months ago regarding a code base the project is dependent on that is
>>>>> outside the ASF which we were considering bringing in as a subproject.
>>>>> were told that under no circumstances could we fork the code without
>>>>> "owner's" blessing, regardless of what the license allowed us to do.
To me,
>>>>> this answer is black and white.
>>>> Not to me. :-)
>>> Which is the problem, isn't it?  Note; hat switch, you are now speaking
>>> with the authority of a Director.
>> Euh, nope. Offering my personal opinions. A Director hat would (and does)
>> mean nothing since I could not speak for the Board.
> So this is a question that should be put to bed once and for all, you have
> both been swinging pretty wildly at diametrically opposed answers to this
> question.
> If we read that the Board has charged this committee with acceptance criteria
> for submitted or proposed products... then the question above should be
> resolved.
> Essentially, we have several choices...
>  [ ] Forks are accepted without judgement [Greg] [1]
>  [ ] [something more nuanced here]
>  [ ] Hostile forks are never acceptable [Roy] [2]
> If the answer lies somewhere in the middle, it would help potential
> contributors/forkers to know approximately where that middle sits.
> [1] "I don't see it as our place to *judge* communities. If it is a fork,
>    or a corporate spin-out, or a move, or brand new... All Good. "
> [2] "At Apache, all contributions are voluntary.  We do not accept code
>    from copyright owners who don't want us to have it, even if we have
>    the legal right to adopt it for other reasons.

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

View raw message