In this current form this discussion belongs either on dev@logging or board@.
Several people here are perfectly capable of forming a proposal, but are choosing to have an unproductive discussion. At this point a new podling would be a hostile fork and those are not accepted. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 8, 2022, at 5:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > > The discussion continues here because the Logging PMC is intransigent and > non-responsive to the concerns already well established by parties on this > thread. I don't see how this can be resolved without you "giving in". > Perhaps that is the problem, but I don't want to be an armchair > psychiatrist, I just want a logging library without known security bugs > that remains compatible with existing code and configuration formats and > does not force me to transitively upgrade/rebuild/modify the world. > >> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> On Jan 8, 2022, at 4:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> The Logging PMC is the hostile party here as far as I can tell, operating >>> in defiance of the community of users that have made the points I have >> just >>> written here abundantly clear for years. >> >> The Logging PMC is the owner of Log4j 1.x. We declared it EOL in 2015. Not >> one single complaint was received nor were any proposals made to the PMC >> until over 6 years later. This is not the sign of a hostile PMC but one >> that has >> moved on from unmaintainable software. Heck, even Ceki abandoned it years >> before its last release to concentrate on its replacement. >> >> The PMC held a discussion on the dev mailing list. Out of non-PMC members >> there were very few responses. One person was in favor of reviving the >> project >> even to the point of fixing bugs and continuing development beyond just >> fixing >> CVEs. Leo Simmons did offer to help. Here is what he said during the >> discussion: >> >> I think I made clear what I am interested in through several emails >> and in code. >> I've also pointed out what I wouldn't do (like step up as a maintainer >> on a. >> permanent basis, or incubate something). >> >> I think all the relevant arguments on how to proceed with 1.x have been >> made (a few times…). >> I don't have anything new to add. >> I'll accept the vote outcome. >> >> So we had two people expressing interest, one with no hope of ever being >> offered >> commit rights due to his behavior on our lists and in reviewing the other >> projects >> he participates on. >> >> So we were left with the choice of us allowing Leo to do that work and us >> having >> to spend time reviewing the PRs and applying them. Frankly, none of us >> were >> interested enough in this to spend that kind of time, especially since we >> know at >> least two usable drop-in replacements for Log4j 1.2 that fix the CVEs >> already exist. >> >> I seriously think the outcome would have been different had Ceki offered >> to help >> while the discussion was going on. Instead, he decided to offer to help >> after the >> PMC posted its announcement of the vote results and the reasons why we >> voted >> that way. >> >> Since the Logging Services PMC is responsible for Log4j1 I fail to see why >> a >> discussion is even continuing on this list. The Logging Services PMC has >> made >> clear that it is not going to sponsor a podling for this and the PMC still >> retains >> ownership of the code. >> >> Ralph >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
