www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: Clarification about D&O insurance and bad acts
Date Thu, 29 May 2014 12:14:59 GMT
+1

Think about it like a QA department of a production line in a company building children toys.

Of course all employees take care to not introduce a failure which might harm children. But
even then it _might_ happen.

Now what would happen if such a failure really appears? They would sue the hell out of this
company...

By having a QA department which does an independent check if all is fine over and over again
this risk might get reduced. And even if a failure still slips through it will help the company
to not get hit too hard at least.

LieGrue,
strub

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 29/5/14, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Clarification about D&O insurance and bad acts
 To: legal-discuss@apache.org
 Date: Thursday, 29 May, 2014, 13:49
 
 Not sure what you mean by
 that... One of the aspects
 of verifying a
 release is checking that the bits going out
 are, in fact, the expected and correct bits...
 which sounds
 like src verification to me.
 And is, obviously, appropriate
 and
 necessary.
 
 On May 28, 2014,
 at 2:47 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
 
 > Agreed! That said, src
 verification for releases is not always appropriate or
 necessary. (Depending on the project, the people and their
 unique attributes.)
 > 
 > On May 28, 2014 1:01 PM, "Jim
 Jagielski" <jim@jagunet.com>
 wrote:
 > That is true. But doing normal
 work-in-progress, and the
 > oversight
 thereof, is a different thing than doing a
 > release.
 > 
 > One does not negate the other, nor does it
 remove the
 > need for the other. Saying
 "we do X oversight for our day
 > to
 day development" does not mean that no oversight is
 > needed for a release, simply because
 it's a different
 > kind of oversight
 for a different kind of activity.
 > 
 > On May 27, 2014, at 5:22 PM, Brian LeRoux
 <b@brian.io> wrote:
 > 
 > > We could both
 wax hypothetical about the merit of humans and error
 proneness. My point is whatever is work-in-progress is a
 daily responsibility and not something to be left for the
 last minute check by others. Ever.
 >
 >
 > >
 > > On
 Tue, May 27, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
 wrote:
 > > Brian, you are absolutely
 correct. However, SVN is not the release and so having
 reviewed commits is not the same as having reviewed the
 release. In a well run project where people are reviewing
 code commits there should be no problem. But people make
 errors and you would be surprised how often those errors
 slip through.
 > >
 >
 > Furthermore, since I (as a committer) cannot guarantee
 that I reviewed every change to every file between release a
 and release b I cannot, as a PMC member, be certain that the
 necessary files are present and correct. If I were to vote
 +1 without having reviewed the release then my vote would be
 worthless when it comes to demonstrating that our policy has
 been followed for that release.
 > >
 > > Ross
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > On 27 May
 2014 10:25, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
 > > From my perspective this is a daily
 requirement of a responsible committer. That final check
 isn't hurting anything but it is not even remotely
 acceptable for a committer to not be constantly vigilant
 when landing commits to our source.
 >
 >
 > >
 > > On
 Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
 wrote:
 > > Ross Gardler wrote:
 > >
 > > > In my
 mind (and I am not a lawyer so that means almost nothing in
 these situations) the requirement to have 3 PMC members
 indicate that, to the best of their knowledge, the release
 is compliant with the policy is sufficient.
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > Leaving my
 lawyer hat off for a bit, it seems so to me too. I'm not
 worried. I wasn't even worried about that when I served
 on the board. /Larry
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
 > > Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2014 8:08
 PM
 > > To: legal-discuss@apache.org;
 Larry Rosen
 > > Subject: Re:
 Clarification about D&O insurance and bad acts
 > >
 > >
 <snip>
 > >
 >
 >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > 
 > 
 >
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
 > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
 >
 
 
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
 

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


Mime
View raw message