Throwing around weight is generally not a good thing. Alex made a very reasonable suggestion on how he can approach them:
> "Hey, I'm Justin and one of my specialties is reviewing > ASF releases and finding potential areas for improvement in handling of > licensing and headers and I noticed that you don't have headers in each of > our source files and adding them would help them be consumed by Apache > projects and here's a patch that does that” On Oct 6, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > So how about him approaching as "Justin who is member of the Flex PMC" asking > him as an individual to please do XYZ? > > > It would state that it's not the PMC asking, but would lay a little more > weight on his appeal? > > > Chris > > ________________________________ > Von: Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 07:58:32 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues > > I would also prefer that Justin contact them as an individual. I think it’s > less confrontational. I see no reason to do so as “an official representative > of the PMC”. I see no benefit in doing so. > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Are other PMC members ok with approaching the upstreams as a PMC? Do >> other PMC members prefer to use "trust" and "intent" and not bother 3rd >> parties on these details? Maybe I'm in the minority these days. It >> would certainly end the debate if the upstreams added headers, but I don't >> know if we want our project to have the reputation for being the stickler >> for these details. >
