Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07F70709D for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 52464 invoked by uid 500); 27 Nov 2011 21:18:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 52315 invoked by uid 500); 27 Nov 2011 21:18:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 52306 invoked by uid 99); 27 Nov 2011 21:18:41 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:18:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.175] (HELO mail-gx0-f175.google.com) (209.85.161.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:18:34 +0000 Received: by ggnh1 with SMTP id h1so549509ggn.6 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:18:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YAQJO4OJj/johV7pq4QmUVvUUN5KRQkbYPXVpqa2J6o=; b=v2AKTiwfmVkVxRvG/kF2qXJyVBSU9Og/K2ZN7nuY792r7v4efY713wu0tJqOxJX8UP 8yoKAqqwxrEIVmORsRbq3bu8hROpQe4+Y8HUHliRdPgXc6X/s9TKuThaYMrGVgNlmCp2 Gdrj6xwiSGV6oPEwoqWl58ZKSyZkgS3aNRRak= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.197.72 with SMTP id s48mr58477679yhn.81.1322428694139; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.170.102 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:18:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1322427910.14902.YahooMailNeo@web160909.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1322421695.97193.YahooMailNeo@web160917.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

<1322427910.14902.YahooMailNeo@web160909.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:18:14 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases From: Robert Burrell Donkin To: general@incubator.apache.org, Joe Schaefer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrot= e: >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin >> 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. > > I wouldn't go that far.=A0 I mean if a podling is trying to ship GPL code= or hasn't > completed its IP checklist, it shouldn't be releasing software from the A= SF > yet.=A0 Those aren't issues that require privacy. +1 in principle But in practice, this tends to be about managing legal risk to the foundation. In order to get time to allow our counsel to give legal advice, infra would probably be asked (by the legal VP or a group of 3 committee members) to block access whilst the internal legal and board decide how to sort out the mess. (Or at least that's the way it's worked in the past.) Quite a big stick, which makes VETO a tough call to make. For me, shipping GPL code or incomplete IP check would be -1 but not VETO issues. For me, examples of serious legal issues would be an email threatening legal action if a release goes ahead but even this is controversial. Robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org