cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Abhinandan Prateek <Abhinandan.Prat...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
Date Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:20:06 GMT
+1 this is reasonable.

On 26/02/14 8:14 pm, "Chip Childers" <chipchilders@apache.org> wrote:

>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
><animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>A couple of things:
>
>First, we don't have any "mentors" anymore...  we're a TLP.
>
>Second, although the question of "liability" has been clarified in the
>private@ thread, I'll summarize briefly here:
>
>The reason that we follow the voting process (where the PMC votes are
>binding) and other ASF-wide policies, is so that any release is an
>"act of the foundation" and not an act of an individual.  The point is
>that if someone were to purposefully ignore policy, then they put
>themselves at risk.  The whole reason for the foundation to have it's
>policies is to protect all of the committers and contributors from
>personal liability!  So the only thing that really matters is that if
>we follow the policies of the foundation, there's nothing to worry
>about.
>
>Being a release manager is nothing to worry about...  the whole PMC is
>helping to ensure that we follow policies.  As our current 4.3 issue
>has pointed out, sometimes this means we have to slow down to fix
>something.  If something slipped through, it's still not a "liability"
>issue in practical terms.  It's just a mistake that we would then work
>to correct.
>
>Make sense?
>
>-chip


Mime
View raw message