On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 18:18, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looks like more clarification is in order. I am not a CXF committer. > My role in the Apache Camel project has no relevance here. Here I > speak as an Apache member. One of the duties of Apache members is > to provide oversight to other projects which, experience taught us, > is a useful and necessary thing. > > The fact that you have the right to express your opinion and position > is undeniable. Hey, as a cxf-pmc member you also get a binding vote > in the project. You are also expected to be familiar with the > 'apache way' and policies. > > What I believe Dan clarified in a previous mail (I hoped) is that > there are some aspects on which your statement that "the community has > not decided on its position and that is the only position that ultimately > matters" > is misguided. Things related to branding, trademarks and how they > are used are not up to the PMC and these topics are even more sensitive > lately for reasons Dan alluded to. > > So what you're saying about policing is that: "it is one of the > responsibilities of being a committer". I totally agree with that, > yet in this particular instance Dan is the one fulfilling the > committer responsibility of reverting your change. Using your > reasoning, on would have expected you to fix a change of a > contributor who's expected to know less about the 'apache way' > then you, not to create the problem in the first place. > > It's not about consensus, it's about knowing what's right and wrong. > Non committers on the list showed that it's not hard to make the > distinction. Now, I know you personally, I've worked with you for > a number of years, I respect your talents, I know you're a smart and > honest guy. That's what makes this quite sad. I find it hard to > believe that your actions were not influenced by external factors. > I hope I am wrong. > > If you look at the history of this event, what happened is that you > made changes to the site (not only CXF). On the Camel site I decided > to write you in private and settle it that way. Dan on the other hand > decided to just update the page. Moments later Benson saw the change > and tactfully requested this to stop and then others pitched in. > There is no need to play games and hide behind lack of community > consensus, or let's write yet another policy. The guidelines are clear. > When in doubt ask your PMC chair.
Can we just keep things to straight facts ? Looking at the recent commit logs, I can't see Eric having done any modification to the web site on that area. The only thing I see is Dan moved a part of the "Support" web page to the "Commercial CXF offerings" one. AFAIK, Eric is not involved in that. > > Things happen. We can learn from them and move on. > > Cheers, > Hadrian > > > > > On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Eric Johnson wrote: > >> Hadrian, >> We discussed a specific instance in private. I was happy to accept >> your guidelines given your position as PMC Chair of Apache Camel and >> will abide by them. As the existence of this thread evidences, the >> boundaries of what is acceptable for companies to place on a project >> site is not clear for the CXF community and they are seeking to form a >> clear position. This is particularly important now that multiple >> companies with marketing departments are offering commercial products >> based on CXF. >> While you may disagree with my position about the appropriateness of >> the content allowed to be placed on Apache projects from commercial >> entities, my position is still a valid one that deserves to be aired. >> I understand your position and think it is also a valid position. >> However, the community has not decided on its position and that is the >> only position that ultimately matters. >> As for having to police the wiki, it is not the reason for becoming a >> commiter. However, it is one of the responsibilities of being a >> commiter. If there was an agreed upon consensus for what is >> appropriate then self-policing is possible. However, without that >> consensus everyone is right. >> Eric >> >> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Eric, I am still trying to decide if you are serious or just fooling around. >>> I thought we clarified this in private. Public is fine too. Comments inline. >>> >>> If I come across as upset, I am! >>> >>> Hadrian >>> >>> >>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Eric Johnson wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with Dan and Glenn. Commercial support makes CXF stronger and >>>> provides a way for active committers (and some inactive one as well) >>>> to earn a living while doing what they love doing. >>> Good so far. >>> >>>> Letting companies put up some marketing blurb on the support page >>>> and/or on a dedicated Commercial Offering page does not hurt as long >>>> as it is clearly marked as commercial. >>> Wrong. On your company site you can write what you want, on the ASF site, >>> not so. Regardless of how you mark it. >>> >>> >>>> As for allowing marketing statements that are more truthy than true, I >>>> don't think it is a big deal.Who really cares if FuseSource, Talend, >>>> and MuleSource all claim to have the most active committers or PMC >>>> members. It doesn't make their offering any better or take away from >>>> the strength of the CXF community. Besides we can police statements >>>> like that and remove them if we so choose - as long as it is done >>>> consistently. >>> But it is a big deal. Write whatever you want on the fusesource site and >>> link back to the apache project if you want to. >>> Adding a link back from the apache site to your site and mention that you >>> offer support or whatever other service, that's fine. >>> You have the "Commercial CXF Offerings" page for that. Ads, marketing >>> statements are not fine. >>> You can also add links back to your blog, fine too. >>> >>> I agree that it doesn't make company offering any better or any worse, but >>> that has nothing to do with the apache project, make your statements on >>> your site, but not on the apache site just because it has more traffic, or >>> whatever the reason. >>> There are companies who offer free licenses to commercial products for >>> apache committers and what they appreciate in return (don't make it a >>> condition) is a link back on a Thanks page. Just because one is entrusted >>> to edit the wiki doesn't mean one can abuse. >>> >>> Policing statements? Is that the reason you wanted to become a proud apache >>> committer, to police the wiki? >>> We expect self policing. When things are not clear, we clarify them. >>> >>> >>>> Since there are now at least three decent size companies offering >>>> commercial products based on CXF we should work out a policy about >>>> where companies can put links back to their sites and list their >>>> offerings. It would make it easier for companies to know what the line >>>> is so they can avoid crossing it. >>> I think that's pretty clear already. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Glen Mazza <gma...@talend.com> wrote: >>>>> OK, fine, providing they can link to such horn tooting pages from the >>>>> support site. Open source supporting companies hire marketing reps and I >>>>> have no problem with them enticing users into getting commercial support. >>>>> It's good for the community. CXF cannot survive on arrogant inactive >>>>> committers alone. >>>>> >>>>> Glen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 02.02.2011 22:28, Jeff Genender wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> -1... what is reputable? Who decides who is "reputable"? Am I >>>>>> reputable? >>>>>> >>>>>> Apache is not about tooting your own horn. Go back to your respective >>>>>> company and have them purchase press releases and advertise on their >>>>>> sites. >>>>>> Apache is not a locale for horn tooting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 2, 2011, at 7:23 PM, Glen Mazza wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Unless it is blatant lies (i.e., non-reputable companies), I say let the >>>>>>> companies do a little bit of advertising on the Support page, even if >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> contradict each other or embellish a bit. We want users to choose >>>>>>> support, >>>>>>> because it results in more hired people working on the projects. Let >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> support page be the "toot your own horn" page and instead enforce >>>>>>> non-advertising throughout the rest of the manual, where everything does >>>>>>> need to be strictly factual. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keeping a loose leash on the Support page also helps minimize strife >>>>>>> between teams. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In Manhattan there might be 300 places to buy pizza, about 75 of which >>>>>>> claim to be "New York's Best Pizza!" That's just advertising, it >>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>> need to be taken seriously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Glen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 02.02.2011 20:50, Daniel Kulp wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Someone is paying attention... cool. :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday 02 February 2011 8:27:38 pm Benson Margulies wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do we need to have these dueling claims for who employs how many >>>>>>>>> committers / PMC members? Could we persuade both Talend and FUSE to >>>>>>>>> just say 'committers, get your red hot committers!' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm in the process of cleaning things up a bit. I've been chatting >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> various people on the trademark committee as well as others and one >>>>>>>> "concern" >>>>>>>> that has been expressed with some projects is project sites being used >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> marketing vehicles for specific commercial offerings and products. >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> guideline I got was: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>>>> PMCs can choose to have "these companies support our product" pages if >>>>>>>> they want. But they have to be factual, non-advertisements; should be >>>>>>>> in specific places on the project's site; and must not be exclusive >>>>>>>> (i.e. any other reputable company needs to be able to request to add >>>>>>>> links as well). >>>>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Step one was just to copy the information and localize it all to a >>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>> page. Step two is the "factual, non-advertisement" part. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:23 PM,<conflue...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Commercial CXF Offerings >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Page added by Daniel Kulp >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Commercial CXF Offerings >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Apache CXF is a widely used project. As such several companies have >>>>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>>>> products and services around CXF. This page is dedicated to providing >>>>>>>>>> descriptions of those offerings. Companies are definitely encouraged >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> update this page directly or send a mail to the CXF PMC with a >>>>>>>>>> description of your offerings and we can update the page. The >>>>>>>>>> products >>>>>>>>>> and services listed on this page are provided for information use >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> to our users. The CXF PMC does not endorse or recommend any of the >>>>>>>>>> products or services on this page. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> FuseSource >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> FuseSource offers enterprise subscriptions that include Enterprise >>>>>>>>>> Developer and Production Support on ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF and >>>>>>>>>> ServiceMix >>>>>>>>>> - including Training, Consulting& Mentoring. They also employ most >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the core committers on the projects to ensure you get the best >>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>> answers to all your support needs and your bugs fixed fast. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> MuleSoft >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> MuleSoft provides support for Apache CXF as a part of its Mule >>>>>>>>>> enterprise >>>>>>>>>> subscription offering. Mule is a popular open source ESB and >>>>>>>>>> integration >>>>>>>>>> platform, with support for SOAP web services, as well as REST, JMS, >>>>>>>>>> File >>>>>>>>>> and over 100+ additional transports. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sosnoski Software Associates Ltd >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sosnoski Software Associates Ltd provides training and support for >>>>>>>>>> CXF, >>>>>>>>>> along with training and support for web services security and SOA >>>>>>>>>> based >>>>>>>>>> on CXF. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Talend >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Talend provides enterprise level services and support for Apache CXF >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> their Talend Service Factory product which is a repackaging of CXF >>>>>>>>>> including a full, pre-configured OSGi runtime container. Talend also >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> a package of examples that demonstrate many of CXF's advanced >>>>>>>>>> features >>>>>>>>>> including JAX-RS use cases, OSGi deployments, Security, etc... Talend >>>>>>>>>> also employs the leading CXF committers that are experts in all areas >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> CXF including JAX-RS, JAX-WS, WS-Security, etc... to make sure any >>>>>>>>>> bugs >>>>>>>>>> and issues can be resolved quickly and accurately. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Change Notification Preferences >>>>>>>>>> View Online | Add Comment >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Glen Mazza >>>>>>> Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com) >>>>>>> blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Glen Mazza >>>>> Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com) >>>>> blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Principle Technical Writer >>>> Phone (781) 280-4174 >>>> Skype finnmccumial >>>> E-Mail emjohn...@fusesource.com >>>> Blog http://documentingit.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Principle Technical Writer >> Phone (781) 280-4174 >> Skype finnmccumial >> E-Mail emjohn...@fusesource.com >> Blog http://documentingit.blogspot.com/ > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
