www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Release Policy
Date Thu, 22 May 2014 22:11:25 GMT
Since when?  Since this month maybe, but for the past decade the board has entrusted infra
with stewardship of the release policy.  After all that's why it's in /dev in the first place.
 If this board is dissatisfied  with that relationship they can bloody well move the document
to another part of the tree.

My two cents of course.
Sent from my iPhone

> On May 22, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/22/14 5:27 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>> Mark Struberg is an army of one when it comes to release policy.
>> Frankly the custodians of the policy are not subscribed to this list
>> so I'm puzzled as to why it's being kicked around here.]
> 
> Well, while there are a number of groups of individuals on various lists who obviously
have key input to any changes - even just better wording like Marvin is most excellently presenting
- but fundamentally release policy changes need to be signed off by VP, Legal or by President;
i.e. by an officer of the corporation who oversees our legal policies.  Thus, this *is* the
right list to drive to consensus, unless VP, Legal has a specific question they need to ask
counsel on *-internal@
> 
> This is corporate policy.  Compliance is mandatory for any Apache project - producing
software product releases is our organization's primary mission.  Obviously, we have significant
work to do in ensuring the policy is both clear enough to use, and with working with projects
to ensure they comply (once we can present it clearly enough!), so this process will take
some time.  But the final answer is not going to be a few people's IMO - it's going to be
signed off by an officer of the ASF.
> 
> - Shane
> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On May 22, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "But the point already got covered and answered dozens of times
>>> imo. The answer is that the ALv2 protects the foundation and also
>>> the release manager already for all bona fides cases. End of
>>> story."
>>> 
>>> Interesting for myself to note that it was communicated very
>>> directly to Cordova that this *was not* the case. Votes are a
>>> necessary component for a valid (aka legal) release. Also
>>> interesting for me to discover in this thread that the release
>>> policy is not adhered to by all ASF projects. We were lead to
>>> believe the rules are immutable, all projects obey them. End of
>>> story.
>>> 
>>> I am dismayed to discover this is not the case and Cordova was
>>> singled out.
>>> 
>>> However, clarity here is a great starting to amending the rules,
>>> and I recognize this effort is not forum for that. My perspective:
>>> the vote is a SHOULD and most certainly SHA verifciation SHOULD be
>>> the job of a computer (aka CI system) and not a human and I am very
>>> happy to hear there is precedent for this with other projects.
>>> 
>>> ‚Äč
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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