incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:49:01 GMT
Exactly- just work within the constraints
and there is no practical problem whatsoever.

> From: Andrew Rist <>
>Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:44 PM
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
>On 8/24/2012 11:19 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Really, all this fuss over the LABELLING of
>> a file being distributed does not add value
>> to either the org, the podling, or the users
>> of the software.  Nowhere is it written that
>> has always been clear that they are provided
>> for the convenience of our users, not as part
>> of an "official" release.  That however does
>> not mean that things like release announcements
>> cannot refer users to those binaries, it simply
>> means those announcements need to reference the
>> sources as "the thing that was formally voted on
>> and approved by the ASF".
>Binaries created /from /the Official Release?
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Dave Fisher <>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 1:56 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
>>> On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>> Returning to this topic after an intermission...
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <>
>>>>>>>> ...As one of the active developers I would have a serious
problem if we as
>>>>>>>> project couldn't provide binary releases for our users. And
I thought
>>>>>>>> the ASF is a serious enough institution that can ensure to
>>>>>>>> binaries of these very popular end user oriented software
and can of
>>>>>>>> course protect the very valuable brand OpenOffice that the
ASF now owns
>>>>>>>> as well...
>>>>>>> As has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread and elsewhere,
at the
>>>>>>> moment ASF releases consist of source code, not binaries.
>>>>>> My impression from this discussion is that many podling contributors
>>>>>> dismayed by this policy, and that there is an element within the
PPMC which
>>>>>> remains convinced that it is actually up to individual PMCs within
the ASF to
>>>>>> set policy as to whether binaries are official or not.
>>>>> If there actually is an ASF-wide Policy concerning binaries then I
>>>>> would expect that:
>>>>> 1) It would come from the ASF Board, or from a Legal Affairs, not as
>>>>> individual opinions on the IPMC list
>>>>> 2) It would be documented someplace, as other important ASF policies
>>>>> are documented
>>>> And 2a)  Actually state the constraints of the policy, i.e., what is
>>>> allowed or disallowed by the policy.  Merely inventing a label like
>>>> "convenience" or "unofficial" gives absolutely zero direction to
>>>> PMC's.  It is just a label.  Consider what the IPMC's Release Guide
>>>> gives with regards to the source artifact.  It is labeled "canonical",
>>>> but that level is backed up with requirements, e.g., that every
>>>> release must include it, that it must be signed, etc.  Similarly,
>>>> podling releases are not merely labeled "podling releases", but policy
>>>> defines requirements, e.g., a disclaimer, a required IPMC vote, etc.
>>>> I hope I am not being too pedantic here.  But I would like to have a
>>>> policy defined here so any PMC can determine whether they are in
>>>> compliance.  But so far I just hear strongly held opinions that amount
>>>> to applying labels, but not mandating or forbidden any actions with
>>>> regards to artifacts that bear these labels.
>>>> Consider:  If some IPMC members declared loudly that "It is ASF policy
>>>> that binary artifacts are 'Umbabuga'", what exactly would you expect a
>>>> Podling to do, given that Umbabuga is an undefined term with no policy
>>>> mandated or forbidden actions?
>>>> There is a seductive appeal to reaching consensus on a label. But it
>>>> avoids the hard part of policy development, the useful part:  reaching
>>>> consensus on constraints to actions.
>>> The AOO PPMC was asked to take this discussion along with digital signature issue
to legal-discuss to get advice. Whether or not this becomes guidance for AOO or official foundation
wide policy is ultimately up to the Board and the Membership.
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>>> 3) That the policies is applied not only to AOO, but to other podlings
>>>>> and to TLP's as well.
>>>>> Until that happens, I hear only opinions.  But opinions, even widely
>>>>> held opinions, even Roy opinions, are not the same as policy.
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>> OTOH I don't think anybody said the ASF will never allow projects
>>>>>>> distribute binaries - but people who want to do that need to
>>>>>>> together (*) and come up with a proposal that's compatible with
>>>>>>> ASF's goals and constraints, so that a clear policy can be set.
>>>>>> I'm concerned that such an effort may not be completed, and that
once the
>>>>>> podling graduates, AOO binaries will once again be advertised as
>>>>>> placing the project in conflict with ASF-wide policy.  It may be
that some
>>>>>> within the newly formed PMC will speak out in favor of the ASF status
quo, but
>>>>>> as their position will likely be inexpedient and unpopular, it may
>>>>>> difficult to prevail.
>>>>>> Of course I don't know how things will play out, but it seems to
me that
>>>>>> reactions from podling contributors have ranged from discouraged
to skeptical
>>>>>> to antagonistic and that there is limited enthusisasm for working
within the ASF
>>>>>> on this matter.
>>>>>> Gaming out this pessimistic scenario, what would it look like if
the Board
>>>>>> were forced to clamp down on a rebellious AOO PMC to enforce ASF
>>>>>> regarding binary releases?
>>>>>> If we believe that we are adequately prepared for such circumstances,
then I
>>>>>> think that's good enough and that fully resolving the issue of binary
>>>>>> releases prior to AOO's graduation is not required.
>>>>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message