www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian LeRoux...@brian.io>
Subject Re: Clarification about D&O insurance and bad acts
Date Thu, 29 May 2014 15:18:41 GMT
It can be helpful to learn from contemporaries. I've found our dialogue
instructive, for another direct example, and do not begrudge it. Willful
ignorance of our colleagues here and elsewhere is not at all in the spirit
of ASF aims. At least, I hope so!
On May 29, 2014 10:48 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Who cares how *they* do it? This is *our* policy.
> Certainly you understand that, right? And we've gone out
> of our way to explain the reason and rationale behind it.
> But simply because others don't do it is hardly a reason
> for us to change what we do, or how we do it, in and
> of itself.
>
> I believe that the moon landing actually happened. I can point
> to people who are direct contrasts to that belief. Does that
> mean that I should change my mind? The existence of direct
> contrasts is moot.
>
> On May 29, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>
> > No need to construct vapid analogies when direct contrasts exist.
> >
> > - fsf
> > - software freedom conservancy
> > - mozilla
> >
> > Etc.
> >
> > On May 29, 2014 8:15 AM, "Mark Struberg" <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > +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
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message