incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
Date Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:15:22 GMT
I guess one of the sticking points in all this is the notion
that a release MUST nominally comply with all Apache policies.
Formally, that means it meets the standards set out in

as well as all of our adopted legal policies.  That we tend
to sometimes debate whether something meets the definition
of ASF policy is problematic, but I don't see an easy soln
to that other than to elevate the discussion to either
legal-discuss@ (in the case of legal policy disputes) or
to infrastructure@ or site-dev@ or even board@ if all else
fails (in the caseof disputes about release policy).  That
we have recentlyjust gone down that route is indicative not
of failure on the IPMC's part, but just the normal tide of
reviewing and questioning what the published documentation
actually says.  That people with different experiences will
read that documentation as meaning different things is only
natural, and the search for clearer and more universal language
is a welcome thing, but it's a lot harder than it looks ;-).

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
> To: "" <>
> Cc: Joe Schaefer <>; "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>>  NO.  The only time someone can claim to hold a veto over a release 
> vote is
>>>>  when they are jibberjabbering about legal issues.  NOTICE errors 
> really
>>>>  don't risk a lawsuit from anyone, so those -1's are NOT 
> vetoes.
>>>  If Joe didn't send this reply, I was about to myself. Here's 2 
> IPMC members that
>>>  *do* agree on this: Joe is right, VETOs do *not* apply to releases of 
> code.
>>  Any legal issue serious enough to VETO a release would require code
>>  access to be blocked and all discussions taken private. Anything short
>>  of this isn't a VETO.
> Agreed! Uh-oh, that's *three* IPMC members that agree! Shocking! :-)
> Can we get 4? LOL.
> Cheers,
> Chris
> (Mr. In-a-great-mood-after-the-USC-game-last-night)
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email:
> WWW:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message