Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
From: Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_4038E111-B445-4C80-B333-453CF87A4E45"
Message-Id: <3A92556E-B204-4059-8365-10F1520DF69B@classsoftware.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:10:17 +0100
References: <CFC53DBA.24638%aharui@adobe.com>
 <77694515-CB2D-46AD-8F1E-BB094214448A@classsoftware.com>
 <CACK5iZcp54y+6rZG25h6exFfJj76U9gMorKrEeGpAQs2eoxxtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@flex.apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACK5iZcp54y+6rZG25h6exFfJj76U9gMorKrEeGpAQs2eoxxtw@mail.gmail.com>

--Apple-Mail=_4038E111-B445-4C80-B333-453CF87A4E45
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

HI,

> Link to the discussion, please?

Been several - they are quite long - the 3rd one is probably the most =
relevant.
1. =
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3c=
CAAS6=3D7jTVyaDhwepAqob-=3D83DxJ-uaMS9GyG5j5XdHYybvAtGQ@mail.gmail.com%3e
=
2.http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%=
3cCAAS6=3D7hMsjJ1ATztOyeE_QNdPpQvvsxmx58vWrCqug1po2OGEQ@mail.gmail.com%3e
3. =
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3c=
CAOFYJNaqACY-JXUesx-V0PnsiCCkfVo_xKdEMO-N5Nt7Y_JTFQ@mail.gmail.com%3e

A release is "a legal act guarded by responsible oversight" [1] and =
automating that means we lose the oversight, and "until the policy is =
changed, PMCs and RMs are expected and *required* to comply." [2]. Worse =
case the board will do this [3].

The script are certainly useful as a double check but IMO should not be =
use used as the sole reason to vote +1. At the very least we need to =
have a discussion re this method of checking release and a VOTE on it =
before introducing it. Given the legal ramifications (and our limited =
legal understanding) IMO we should err of the side of caution.
=20
Thanks,
Justin

1. =
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3c=
6F8EDB3F-12C5-4D0C-A379-E9AB4F99F391@jaguNET.com%3e
2. =
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3c=
47681A1F-924F-496F-8209-46EF3EDB7F02@jaguNET.com%3e
3. =
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3c=
80083BE7-9F6C-43DC-A97F-9AED674C9B98@jaguNET.com%3e


--Apple-Mail=_4038E111-B445-4C80-B333-453CF87A4E45--