www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: Clarification about D&O insurance and bad acts
Date Tue, 27 May 2014 19:59:28 GMT
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.


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>

View raw message