> @Chip and @Hugo > >> Correct, and my statement stands. I'm -1 on any policy within the project >> that enforces the use of a single company's resources if they are only >> controlled by that company. Let's see how we can move this to the ASF (and >> tweak / tune based on a better understanding of usage) before considering >> it a project "policy". > > I think that's fair. And if anything in this proposal that I worried about, > this is it. The problem for me is we haven't gotten there for ASF infra in > two years and I'm worried that given the problems we're seeing with 4.4, we > will lose momentum if we simply wait. I'm perfectly fine with exploring ways > to find a middle ground. For example, if Citrix is to open the > infrastructure to community (I would need to find some way to convince > Citrix), is that acceptable? Opening it to the public would still mean the > on-going cost is provided by Citrix so it's not truly independent of Citrix. > I'm open to any suggestions to move us forward faster here. >
Like Chip, I am very concerned with this being dependent on a single company, even if its the company that employs me. It isn't sustainable, it excludes others from contributing, and makes the project less independent because it depends on a single company's infrastructure. I'm also unclear on the answer to the question in the FAQ. The first time I read it, I got the impression that you were happy to bring it up on hardware at the ASF if the ASF wanted to own it. The second time I read it I wondered if you meant that Citrix was going to attempt to donate hardware. Finally - what do you think you need from ASF infra to make this happen? --David
