www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <rdon...@apache.org>
Subject Improved Release Documentation [WAS Re: Clarification on the release requirements]
Date Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:46:17 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brian Fox wrote:
> 
> 
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Brian Fox <brianf@infinity.nu> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> How can you audit the PMCs when these policies are not even documented
>>> anywhere? Perhaps the membership isn't even aware of these policies
>>> to start
>>> with and thus there might be wide disagreement? One can't know until
>>> it's
>>> written down and everyone can see it clearly.
>>>     
>>
>> I wrote somewhere "advisory audit", meaning detection in malpractice
>> and help to rectify.
>>
>> Clarifications to documents is of course better, BUT it also feels
>> that ASF has grown so fast that many don't get TheApacheWay in this
>> area, which saddens me.
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> Clarifications to the documents is the _only_ way to solve this once and
> for all...otherwise everything is just an opinion, there's nothing
> official. If there is, please point me to it. I think the process as
> described so far is pretty overbearing, but that's just my opinion for
> now and as such pretty irrelevant. We can't really build a proper
> process on unofficial opinions, mine or anyone else's. (well we could,
> but then we'd be back to the discussion again and again).

documentation != policy

but yes, we need better documentation (we've know that for years)

IMO one of the problems (and reasons why i stopped writing documentation
for the foundation) is that they had started to be taken as the
immutable gospel when it represented my own interpretation of the
unspoken consensus

> I can hear the passion in Roy's emails but what surprises me is that if
> it's so fundamental and passionate, that it is completely not covered
> anywhere public. And because of that, the current (seemingly not legit
> process) is so widespread throughout the organization, which no offense
> intended, makes me curious if we have the whole story so far.

historically, apache has tried to run on as little policy as possible.
documentation, guidelines, strong opinions fine but policy is hard to
frame and consensus difficult to achieve. too much detailed policy also
has the disadvantage that it reduces the agility of an organisation and
the diversity of experiment within it.

<legal-committee-hat>
it's taken a while but the current processes used at apache are now
mostly ok from a legal perspective. due diligence is done, licenses are
checked, releases are reviewed by the PMC and voted upon. i do not see
that detailed process policy on the release process is within the scope
of our role.
</legal-committee-hat>

IMO the right vehicle for improved release standards and practice is
through developing better descriptive documentation in the incubator. i
switched my documentation efforts there but i've been focussed more on
coding over the last few years.

i would like to see a collective effort to finish off the guidelines and
best practice advice especially in the release area. IMHO this would be
the most positive way to solve this problem. however, IMHO a diversity
of opinions is needed.

anyone else interested?

- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkn5c2kACgkQQ617goCdfgOFOQCfd8Nb0+o4a8/E47myAnaVJgmG
CVUAoOLCw7+rS3wS+qo/yXBsa1XIjvxF
=OxO2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message