ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Greg Stein" <gst...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Resolution for Ant top level project
Date Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:46:25 GMT
In article <5.1.0.14.0.20021105120405.00ad2d78@orson.callenish.com>,
"Bruce Atherton" <bruce@callenish.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Stefan and Conor for clarifying things for me. I'm mostly in
> agreement now. Comments below.
> 
> At 09:24 AM 11/5/2002 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>...
>> > Would the declaration in the resolution be binding on the terms
>> > allowed in the bylaws?
>>
>>I'm not entirely sure, but I think the board would have to approve the
>>bylaws - which would change part of the resolution in retrospect.

The Board does not have to approve the project's bylaws. We would
certainly be concerned if they were "wacky" :-), but the simple answer is
"the project knows best". The Board is interested in protecting the ASF,
in using the ASF to protect the codebase and its committers, and in
furthering the ASF's mission to provide open source code to the world.

>...
> At 09:07 PM 11/5/2002 +1100, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>>So how about this "the creation and maintenance of open-source software
>>related to the Apache Ant build tool and supporting task libraries"? Not
>>sure if that is better - does anyone have any better words?
> 
> My preference would be to keep it generic. As I said, the decision
> regarding specific subprojects should be kept separate from the
> resolution and this wording appears to already exclude many of them. The
> current goal of Ant is to create a build tool. That tool and anything
> that interacts with or supports it are at least potentially in scope,
> but I think the committers at the time should be able to decide
> case-by-case.

The generic form is quite fine. The quarterly reports should have enough
detail such that the Board can tell whether the group is really steering
away from the originally-envisioned scope.

The notion of scope, and possibly falling "out of scope", is not a
problem in and of itself. The problem that has arisen in Jakarta is that
the ASF cannot demonstrate to a court that it has provided proper
oversight. As a result, the ASF cannot assume liability and
responsibility for the code produced by Jakarta.

So the real issue is demonstration of oversight, more than "staying in
scope".

Cheers,
-g

-- 
gstein@apache.org ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message