www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From j.@jmason.org (Justin Mason)
Subject Re: What kind of oversight Is required for a release?
Date Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:10:35 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Cliff Schmidt writes:
>On 11/14/05, Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org> wrote:
>> Cliff Schmidt writes:
>> >On 11/13/05, Issac Goldstand <margol@beamartyr.net> wrote:
>> >> Garrett Rooney wrote:
>> >> > On 11/13/05, Cliff Schmidt <cliffschmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Section 6.3 of the ASF bylaws
>> >> >> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html) establishes PMCs
for
>> >> >> "the creation or maintenance of "open-source" software for
>> >> >> distribution to the public at no charge".  The officer primarily
>> >> >> responsible for the PMC may "establish rules and procedures for
the
>> >> >> day to day management of project(s) for which the committee is
>> >> >> responsible."  It is these rules that govern the specific way that
=
>the
>> >> >> project creates an open and meritocratic environment, which include=
>s
>> >> >> the process of committers voting for things affecting the project.
>> >> >> However, it is always the PMC (and more specifically, the PMC chair=
>,
>> >> >> as the ASF officer) that is responsible for the actions of the
>> >> >> project.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Since official ASF distributions are pretty significant (especially
>> >> >> due to the need to ensure there are no open legal issues), the
PMC
>> >> >> should not lazily delegate this action to the members of its
>> >> >> community.  Of course, they should put a lot of weight on the desir=
>es
>> >> >> of the community, including users, contributors, and committers;
bu=
>t,
>> >> >> the PMC is ultimately responsible for the entire project and must
m=
>ake
>> >> >> the final decision.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So what you're saying is that while other people can vote, they're
>> >> > only expressing an opinion, and those votes really can't count towar=
>ds
>> >> > the 3 required for a release, right?
>> >> >
>> >> That's not what I thought I read - I saw "there is no standard set of
>> >> rules, the PMC members (and ultimately, the PMC chair) of each project
>> >> are free to come up with a set of rules for their own project, so long
>> >> as they realize that ultimately, it is their responsibility to ensure
>> >> release compliance with ASF standards".
>> >
>> >I'd say, ask your PMC chair.  If *you are a PMC chair* and think it is
>> >fine for committers on your project to release distributions on behalf
>> >of the ASF without three +1 votes from PMC members, I would suggest
>> >you make sure the board doesn't have a problem with that.  I can only
>> >tell you that the Beehive, Incubator, and XMLBeans releases require
>> >PMC votes, not certain about the other ~30 projects.
>>
>> Well... SpamAssassin does not require PMC votes, just 3 +1's from
>> committers -- http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/VotingProcedure .
>> So make that 29.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes does not sugges=
>t
>> that we need to ask the board for permission to use that model.  Perhaps
>> it needs updating ;)
>
>Actually, that same page has a section at the top, "Binding Votes":
>
>"Who is permitted to vote is, to some extent, a community-specific
>thing. However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding
>votes, and all others are either discouraged from voting (to keep the
>noise down) or else have their votes considered of an indicative or
>advisory nature only.
>
>That's the general rule. In actual fact, things tend to be a little
>looser, and procedural votes from developers and committers are
>sometimes considered binding if the voter has acquired enough merit
>and respect in the community. Only votes by PMC members are considered
>binding on code-modification issues, however."

Yep, I read that.  If you ask me, that's pretty non-committal on the
subject, and certainly seems to indicate that it's up to the PMC.

Hence, if in fact this decision is something that's up to the board, not
the PMC, I'd say the page needs to note that.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFDeO86MJF5cimLx9ARAl5UAKC9Ja9hBJvFb6Qc0sijXJHseG/rCACgoTtQ
b2bJfsZxdKlvXTsvXeCgIMc=
=o6xv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not 
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions 
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for 
official ASF policies and documents. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message