Thank you, Brett and Jukka, for spending the time pointing to the publicly documented and archived materials that have led to the current practice of only considering concrete (PMC driven) use cases rather than hypothetical cases.
This is extremely useful for those who have some difficulty in understanding how the ASF works and why it works that way.

Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Senior Technology Evangelist
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation

On 30 October 2013 06:17, Jukka Zitting <> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Brett Porter <> wrote:
> The process of recording specific answered questions was discussed by the
> Legal Affairs Committee in March 2008 on this list, and has been in
> operation since that time. The following statement of intent was used:
> "As much as humanly possible, everything will be by consensus of the Legal
> Affairs Committee, though possibly via Lazy Consensus. If there ever is a
> time that consensus can't be reached, the decision will fall to the Chair
> who will keep the board informed on any such issues."

FTR, the culmination of that discussion is in (alternative view in

That statement of intent and its rationale were then recorded in more
authoritative form in, with
a link to it on The section "Statement
of Intent" of that document records the principle quoted by Brett.

It also documents the reason behind the resolution of LEGAL-179:

    "PMCs will be encouraged to provide specific questions.
    Questions of the form listed above will take priority over
    "here's a problem, solve it for me" types of open ended


Jukka Zitting

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail: