Hi, > On Mar 11, 2025, at 4:23 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Looking at the first propopal, I was surprised to discover > https://www.kie.org/ - having a domain name like this is not in line with ASF > trademark policy, nor is having a domain name like https://kogito.kie.org/. > There are other trademark issues with those site(s), I trust the PPMC is > aware of this and is taking steps to fix this before graduation?
While these issues may be true, let’s not spread the flow by adding something else. > I’m not part of your community, so it is possible I’m misreading this, but I > see some issues from a casual glance. IMO, the two proposals need to be > discussed further and consensus reached before moving forward. Calling for a > vote without discussion, like the second proposal, is not how things are done > in ASF projects. It looks like some community problems have been identified, discussed a lot with no consensus, then complex proposals were created by a couple of committers, these proposals were not discussed and instead pushed to a vote. I am not surprised that a number of community members responded with a -1. I think that rather than have an abstract battle on how to vote the proposers should do some work by adding to this examples repository. If it accomplishes what the proposers think it will then having it will help convince the rest of the community, and then the rest of the work can continue. Best, Dave > > Kind Regards, > Justin > >> On 12 Mar 2025, at 7:48 AM, Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> this is Paolo Bizzarri. I am part of the Apache Kie project. >> >> I am looking for clarifications about the official policy of Apache >> foundation about code changes and vetoes. >> >> As per this document in the Apache web site, a -1 to a proposal for a code >> change is a veto - i.e. it "kills the proposals" >> >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#:~:text=Votes%20On%20Code%20Modification,approve%20of%20this%20change.%27 >> >> However we got two proposals that are getting pushed through even in >> presence of -1 >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/drojdtvz6xx1zo35ggjm75xdngnfcl21 >> >> and >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/c09l9xq0d8jz7th6k23gf5svoky06955 >> >> I got an answer from Alex Porcelly stating that "-1 are not vetos on >> proposals" which seems wrong to me. These are code changes and so the rules >> for vetoes should apply. >> >> Otherwise I could make a proposal like "put all passwords in plain text in >> the code" and then pretend that the PR cannot be vetoed because the >> corresponding proposal has already been approved, so there is consensus. >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/r37j54k3fyg5h18d4xdlb43ff9wcq96b >> >> Can you clarify and provide an answer that I can forward to the kie mailing >> list? >> >> I understand that some projects have defined less restricting veto >> policies, but I understand also that this is a matter of internal rules - >> i.e. a way for the community of a project to decide how to work. My >> understanding is that in the absence of such a decision, the Apache default >> rules apply. >> >> Regards >> >> Paolo Bizzarri > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
