Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com
 designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgBQbrJYBdf6UM9QfXf4dCZuUj21L5mjNMATgzt5+DPKWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOFYJNb7NsegxPoWCvp8p2SnmAPrw15jk0aNxmmgt7rhNq+9RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F866B7D.7050301@rowe-clan.net>
 <AD1F4C16-EBE4-487F-B2EF-2A7E44F32DDE@comcast.net>
 <CAKQbXgDn5dqK=t2oNoF2YCCG8ZpzBaYiZBE+K-mW4rxygqOtRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJO+UbuUokbvbEpiY+yd7no23DnnPMVEyZ_faPhDm3yB=kAEmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKQbXgBQbrJYBdf6UM9QfXf4dCZuUj21L5mjNMATgzt5+DPKWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:36:01 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAKQbXgDOom6y929TZRyjtQzHNrF0Z+aFO=0k1AHpnP3yWPOV=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Extraordinary OpenOffice security patch (Was: [Incubator Wiki]
 Update of "April2012" by robweir)
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 12 April 2012 09:27, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 08:59, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ross Gardler
>> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>> On 12 April 2012 07:48, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was wrongly done. I don't know a better way....
>>>
>>> As one of the "inner circle" I am not offended. All your points are
>>> valid. Thank you for sharing them.
>>>
>>> This was the first and, in all likelihood the last time such an
>>> unusual circumstance will arise. There is no right or wrong way of
>>> handling these things.
>>>
>>> Had we included x then y would have felt excluded, this is what we are
>>> seeing here. However, the line must be drawn somewhere.
>>>
>>
>> Surely at the ASF the line is at PMC membership. If only a subset of
>> the PPMC is trusted enough to be part of some inner circle then the
>> PPMC should be disbanded and reformed from just that inner circle.
>
> This is a podling with a very unusual history. it is not as simple as
> that. However, your general observation is a valid one. The time for
> addressing this is during incubation when it becomes possible to
> determine who is contributing positively to the running of the PPMC.

I should also point out that the perception that information was kept
to a limited group implies mistrust of PPMC members is *false*. The
PPMC have an appointed security team just as many top level PMCs do
that team is tasked with handling security issues and it did so in
this case.

As has been noted, this was *not* an ASF release, only one
*facilitated* by the ASF in the interests of supporting legacy users
of a project that has come to incubation. It is a very unusual
situation to which normal ASF policy does not apply. Handling it
outside normal ASF processes does not imply a problem with those
processes or the PPMC.

Ross

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