As Paul Everitt answered on the Plone lists:"""To ...

2007-03-18T15:23:00.000-07:00

As Paul Everitt answered on the Plone lists:

"""
To correct some points in this blog
post:

1) "With recent officialities surrounding the creation of a formal
business structure with some associates, and concerns such as the
purchase of USD$1M or greater of General Liability".

I don't know what this is referring to.

2) "This is also a difficult issue to approach because I'm not ever
entirely sure who all is involved,"

This:

http://plone.org/foundation

...provides a link to these listings of directors and members:

http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list
http://plone.org/foundation/members

3) "Is there a poignant reason we don't see meeting minutes online?"

Minutes have been online for years:

http://plone.org/foundation/board/minutes

4) "I hate the freaking contributor agreement and feel that FSF and
related contributors to the founding of PF have caved a great deal. The
structure of PF is not consistent with the understanding of Free
Software I've built over the past ten-plus years."

In order to make people feel comfortable, we specifically went to Eben
Moglen to get this done. I suspect Eben has a consistent understanding
of free software. However, you can take that up with him. [wink]

5) "PF has the ability to relicense Plone, Archetypes, et. al. under a
BSD-style license"

Doing so requires a special motion passed by a super-majority of the
members. If, for example, the "will of the community" (the PF members)
want GPL v3, then we can do so without finding each contributor.

Obviously this, like other choices, has pluses and minuses.

6) "If Plone is "Open-Source" and not "Free", then why seek the help of
Free Software advocates, when there are perfectly good Open-Source
advocates?"

This re-license conservancy scheme was designed for us by Eben Moglen as
part of the bootstrapping of the PF:

http://plone.org/foundation/contributing/conservancy

As one can see from Eben's text, we specifically listened to Free
Software advocates.

7) "I fear that the community is worse off with the current PF structure
than with an ad-hoc melee of copyright ownership."

Before we changed to this contributor agreement, we had a choice to make
on what our community wanted. We had a long discussion period,
revisions to the agreements by SFLC based on the input, and we then had
a vote. The vote passed 85-2.

8) To correct a recurring mis-perception, the PF does *not* try to
manage development. When the PF was created, we didn't want its legal
structure to take over the community. Development decisions are still
community-driven.

9) To answer the question of "What does the PF do", here was a blog post
I wrote last year summarizing the first 2 years:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0116506/2006/06/21.html

--Paul

"""

Unfortunate, especially the transparency aspect. M...

2007-02-20T13:22:00.000-08:00

Unfortunate, especially the transparency aspect. Maybe they don't understand the importance of the acm.org demo? Shades of Mambo/Joomla?

Comments on justizin, professional bitmonk: Plone Foundation

As Paul Everitt answered on the Plone lists:"""To ...

Unfortunate, especially the transparency aspect. M...