forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Brondsema <d...@brondsema.net>
Subject Re: Quarterly Report
Date Wed, 12 May 2004 00:59:30 GMT
Quoting David Crossley <crossley@apache.org>:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > ...
> > > Thanks, that helped a lot.
> > > 
> > > My biggest concern would be the direct responsibility for legal issues.
> > > Obviously we know our code best so our own PMC would be well suited from
> > > that perspective.  But we're not lawyers.  Even licensing questions can
> > > get very confusing.  So I don't know how qualified any of us would be to
> > > be responsible from that perspective.
> > 
> > We are responsible does not mean that we cannot ask for help to the 
> > licensing@apache.org list. What we have to ensure is that the Apache 
> > rules about licensing are always met, we don't have to invent new ones.
> 
> And we have a duty to raise any concern directly to the Board.
> At the moment we still are bound to do that, but we do it via
> the XML PMC.
> 
> Here is another very useful message from Stefano when Cocoon
> was proposed to be a top-level project:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103599230901129
> 

A key idea mentioned (that I was not aware of) was the desire to have one PMC
for each codebase.  I'm definitely +1 now that I understand this; that this
isn't just a "we're a big project now", but it is better in general to have
top-level projects rather than projects contained in others.

> There is a special part that i want to raise in response to
> Dave's important concern ...
> 
> <quote>
> 2) what does it mean for the developers?
> 
> An official Cocoon project will have an official PMC which is what is 
> legally reponsible for the code and reports directly to the board. The 
> PMC officer becomes a vice-president of the ASF.
> 
> In order to avoid stupid PMC elections, I'll be in favor of having the 
> PMC composed by *all* committers that ask to be part of it. This to 
> imply that committers and legal protector share the same duties and 
> priviledges.
> 

woo!

> In short, it means that if any of us screws legally, the foundation will 
> protect us. Today, this is not the case.
> </quote>
> 
> 
> Now someone correct me if i am wrong. My interpretation is that,
> as committers, we are already responsible for stuff that gets
> committed to our repositories. When we committers join the new
> Forrest PMC, then we gain legal protection from the ASF.
> 
> --David
> 
> 


-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net 
http://www.brondsema.net : personal 
http://www.splike.com : programming 
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org 

Mime
View raw message