www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Clarification about D&O insurance and bad acts
Date Wed, 28 May 2014 17:01:01 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message