On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org> wrote:
> If we view Apache as a certification of a certain style of quality, then > that fits nicely with my suggestion that anyone wanting a faster cadence > should go do such under their own name/brand > +1 > and roll the changes up to the mainline for certification. > Not sure what "certification" means here. Submitting changes upstream is usually a good idea so that the fork can reduce its long-term development efforts. As a bonus, improvements are shared with the wider upstream community, so it's a win-win. > But the suggestion from Doug is that the act of a subset of the PMC doing > this would create confusion (I assume that's the murky effect) and be bad. > If that subset shares no other common legal entity but Apache then it could be hard to distinguish from Apache. If it's clearly the non-Apache effort of a single individual or corporation then there should be no confusion. Perhaps a set of individuals or corporations could somehow make it clear that they're assuming legal responsibilities and absolve Apache. What I wanted to discourage is a (subset of) a PMC thinking they can bypass Apache policy by working outside of Apache when they don't like Apache policy and inside when they do. I thought your suggestion might be read as encouraging that, even if it's not what you intended, so I sought to clarify things. Does that make sense? Do you disagree? Doug
