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 Re: [LEGAL-67] Who We Are, Legal Affairs
Date Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:42:37 GMT
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
>> i think it would be useful to have a fuller description of the legal
>> affairs setup and who's who in it. i've attached a strawman to
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-67
>>
>> opinions?
>> objections?
>> improvements? (feel free to patch JIRA or just add them )
>>
>> if anyone thinks this is a bad idea or has any strong objections to the
>> draft structure please jump as soon as possible.
>>
>> i've included space for optional bios. it seems appropriate and
>> potentially useful to me but i don't feel slightly ambivalent. opinions?
> 
> I don't get the bit about hats.

it's a straw man proposal - the intention is to provide thought :-)

one traditional way to talk about roles at Apache is through the
metaphor of hats. one approach would be to create an approachable
document using this metaphor, or we could just talk plainly about roles
and reference the main hats bit.

opinions?

> I don't think we should list counsel, and no great desire to list the
> committee. 

it interests me that there's a strong consensus that this public
information should remain obfuscated. if we create a page describing
roles and responsibilities in legal affairs then this poses the natural
question "So who does what?". documentation without that information
would seem more than a little odd to me.

but if the consensus is that Legal Affairs works best in mystery then
i'm happy to drop the idea of documenting how it's supposed to work.

> JIRA permissions only allow the opener or PMC to resolve,
> but there is the question of whose replies to listen to on
> legal-discuss.

IMHO this depends on the role for legal-discuss. if legal problems are
dealt with through a separate channel, and legal discuss is a discussion
and policy forming forum then permissions should be good enough.

this would then raise the question of the right channel stuff that's not
appropriate for the list

- robert


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


Mime
View raw message