incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:56:21 GMT

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, J├╝rgen 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 deliver
>>>>> 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 are
>>> 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.


>> 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 to
>>>> distribute binaries - but people who want to do that need to get
>>>> together (*) and come up with a proposal that's compatible with the
>>>> 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 official,
>>> 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 be
>>> 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
>>> 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 policy
>>> 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:

View raw message