On Jul 13, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 09:23 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
And I am forced to agree as well... To be honest, I still at times
question exactly the "relationship" between the ASF and Maven is.
It's no surprise that Maven chomps at the bit quite a bit regarding
ASF policies, but values the "Apache brand" enough to tow the
line. But IMO it is time for the ASF to see how this is increasing
the risk and potential for trouble with the whole foundation.
Uhm, can you give examples for "only values the brand"? While I had a
number of clashes with Maven people about the direction of the
project,
I always found that every member of the Maven PMC that I ever worked
with and ever talked to, values Apache for what it is and how it
works.
<replying only because Henning asked :) >
Not to belabor the point, but it is true that within Maven, there is
a range of "value-ing" the ASF and the ASF processes and procedures.
I think that everyone there values the ASF, at a deep core value.
But I also think it is true that there is a wider range of feelings
regarding more "peripheral" aspects of being an ASF project, such
as use of marks, (up until recently) control over infra, etc... as
the board minutes of the last several years clearly show. In other
words, if Maven was not an ASF project, I don't think people
would be surprised to see it managed in some very different
ways, but that *being* an ASF project (with all the various benefits)
is important enough (as well as value-ing the core philosophy of
the ASF) to "accept" some of the things some people within the PMC
would prefer was different.
This is not unique to Maven, of course... not at all. Nor is it
something which, in and of itself, is a Bad Thing... not at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
