community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Some maturity model comments
Date Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:33:03 GMT
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
View raw message