incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Making up policy on the fly
Date Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:23:06 GMT
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Ralph Goers<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>
>>> From: Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:00:00 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Making up policy on the fly
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I found it: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look at
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>> If this document is not normative, please let me know. Granted, it says
>>>
>>> "should" and not "must", so if there is a discussion presumably it's
>>> about
>>> whether "should" means "must".
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, let's shut this discussion down and start following the
>>>> rules.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK then. There is something wrong with how hard that was to find though.
>>> And
>>> you're right, instead of "If An Artifact Contains Code Under Several
>>> Licenses,
>>> Should It Contain Several License Files?" it would be much better if it
>>> read "If
>>> An Artifact Contains Code Under Several Licenses, May It Contain Several
>>> License
>>> Files?".  However, I think we should pretend it does.
>>
>> It's written the way it is because we are aware that not all Apache
>> projects
>> comply with the recommendation.
>
> Being ambiguous is no way to set policy.

+1. And i'd go further and say while the ASF does not have a clear
policy on something that is an ASF issue then the IPMC should not be
trying to make up our own, and, we should be trying to shield
poddlings from these ambiguities. If we run into issues of unclear
policy then take it to legal-discuss@ or board@ or where ever is
appropriate but in the meantime let poddlings release as long as they
aren't violating existing policy. We all know that release early
release often is good but thats really difficult for poddlings as
release votes so often run into these types of problems.

One thing I think might help is to change the IPMC poddling release
voting process in the same way that the committer voting process was
changed recently - allow release votes to be held on the poddling
mailing lists and all they need is 3 binding votes from IPMC members
and they only need to bring it to general@ if they can't get enough
binding votes.

Comments?

   ...ant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message