Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of runseb@gmail.com designates
 209.85.215.180 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
From: Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C3637609BC1C0D40A2AC70F4760C7A2D2A7D48@SJCPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 03:07:06 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <643B7A20-6334-4B26-8FD8-2DBB6CE201EE@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKprHVbPzQEe6vPuoACU0t6kmsfjjTW9=pEVwvjPVteG9PY2dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53060741.9050600@widodh.nl>
 <CAKprHVaamqvEDDg-0y=RpdQb1e8R+eB9ORZV80VRJYk+Fy+ong@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3637609BC1C0D40A2AC70F4760C7A2D2A7CB5@SJCPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
 <CAKprHVYgvaMKaJBiO4XvxgwJkY3FfHJBLaNPdTVxJZijd1izuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3637609BC1C0D40A2AC70F4760C7A2D2A7D48@SJCPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org


On Feb 21, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi =
<animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:

>=20
>=20
>> -----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?
>>=20
>>>> LEGAL - when I talk about legal problems below I refer to liability
>>>> incurred by individuals in the project, especially the release
>>>> manager,
>>>=20
>>> [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.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.=20
> [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.=20
>=20
> Sadly this isn't theoretical, and is one of the reasons that
>> the foundation exists.
> [Animesh] What does foundation provide in that case?
>>=20

I read David note as saying that if we follow the release process =
properly -calling for votes, respecting bylaws timeframe, tallying=85etc- =
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.


>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#why
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#why
>>=20
>> --David