community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Some maturity model comments
Date Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:22:03 GMT
In CO10, what does "according to this model" mean?

*CO10*

The project has a well-known homepage that points to all the information
> required to operate according to this model.
>

If it means the Apache model, do most project home pages currently point to
information about Apache operations?

-- Lefty Leverenz


On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
> > LC50:
> >
> > I think the LC50 is actually correct but could perhaps be phrased better
> >
> > My understanding was that the ASF owns the copyright for the collective
> > work of the project I.e. releases.  As Benson notes contributors retain
> > copyright on their contributions but grant the ASF a perpetual license to
> > their contributions
>
> I think that the wording should be expanded to mention both aspects.
>
> >
> > QU30:
> >
> > Agreed, some projects may not do anything that is attack prone or are
> > likely only to be run such that any "security" is provided by whatever
> > runtime they use and the security of that runtime is well beyond the
> > purview of the project.
> >
> > Consensus building:
> >
> > Should there be a CS60 about the rare need for private discussions
> >
> > CS60:
> >
> > In rare situations (typically security, brand enforcement, legal and
> > personnel discussions) the project may need to first reach consensus in
> > private in which case the project should use their official private
> > communications channel such that these rare private discussions are
> > privately archived.  The outcomes of such consensus should where possible
> > be discussed in public as soon as it is appropriate to do so.
> >
> > That isn't great wording but hopefully you get what I am trying to convey
> > - projects should rarely discuss in private and any discussions should
> > become public as soon as it is possible to do so
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > On 14/01/2015 15:33, "Benson Margulies" <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>CD40: perhaps change 'previous version' to 'released version'
> >>
> >>CD50: the committer is not necessarily the author; someone might read
> >>this and not understand what it implies for committers committing
> >>contributions via all of the channels allowed for by the AL. One patch
> >>would be 'immediate provenance', another would be some more lengthier
> >>language about the process.
> >>
> >>LC20: do we need to explain what we mean by 'dependencies'? This has
> >>been a point of friction. Expand or footnote to the distinctions
> >>between essential and optional?
> >>
> >>LC50: the footnote seems wrong; the ASF does not own copyright,
> >>rather, the author retains, and grants the license.
> >>
> >>RE40: do you want to add an explicit statement that legal
> >>responsibility falls upon the head of the person who happened to run
> >>the build?
> >>
> >>QU20: Maybe we need to expands on 'secure'? Maybe this is too strong?
> >>What's wrong with building a product that is explicitly not intended
> >>for use attack-prone environments.
> >>
> >>QU40: Not all communities might agree. Some communities might see
> >>themselves as building fast-moving products. Some communities may lack
> >>the level of volunteer effort required to satisfy this. Does this make
> >>them immature, or just a group of volunteers with different
> >>priorities?
> >>
> >>IN10: I fear that a more detailed definition of independence is going
> >>to be called for here to avoid controversy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message