cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
Date Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:13:47 GMT

Folks since the liability of Release manager has been called out explicitly for the release
I want to call out that I cannot take personal liability for a release and I am not sure why
would anyone else in Release Manager role will take up personal liability. I don't see anything
called out in our bylaws that states Release Manager being liable.

That being said I am seeking advice from ASF mentors and will discuss it in  PMC. I  will
proceed and build an RC after this issue is resolved.

Thanks
Animesh


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:34 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
> 
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 21, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> >>> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:13 PM
> >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
> >>>
> >>>>> LEGAL - when I talk about legal problems below I refer to
> >>>>> liability incurred by individuals in the project, especially the
> >>>>> release manager,
> >>>>
> >>>> [Animesh] Can you clarify 'especially the release manager' part?
> >>>> Release
> >>> manager is just like any other volunteer and does not have any
> >>> special privileges. The community VOTEs on the release.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Sure, it isn't about privilege, it's about liability. So the
> >>> foundation covers (and has insurance for) actions taken on behalf of
> >>> the Foundation. If process is followed (including getting the votes)
> >>> releasing software is effectively a function of the Foundation - and
> >>> thus it bears liability. The foundation needs to ensure that the
> >>> release is a 'authorized business decision' on behalf of the Foundation
> (which is why the Board has to ACK PMC additions, etc.).
> >>> Hence all the process and policy.
> >>>
> >>> Publishing software however, if really done by the release manager.
> >>> And if release process isn't followed, it's no longer a function of
> >>> the foundation - and software is effectively released by the RM, and
> >>> thus he is individually liable.
> >> [Animesh] How do you define the release process being followed or not?
> Isn't Voting on a release the process and PMC and everyone voting
> responsible for it. Release Manager is a facilitator. Without the protection
> why would anyone want to incur liability as a release manager? In the links
> that you sent I have not seen specific reference to Release Manager being
> liable.
> >>
> >> Sadly this isn't theoretical, and is one of the reasons that
> >>> the foundation exists.
> >> [Animesh] What does foundation provide in that case?
> >>>
> >
> > I read David note as saying that if we follow the release process properly -
> calling for votes, respecting bylaws timeframe, tallying...etc- then the ASF is
> liable for what's in the release. But if we were to not follow due process then
> the RM would be liable.
> >
> > In our case we follow process, so the Foundation is liable.
> >
> 
> Yes, if I wasn't clear - what Sebastien said was my intent.
> 
> --David


Mime
View raw message