www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release Policy
Date Fri, 23 May 2014 21:50:31 GMT
Brian,

IANAL. I do not remember seeing it as a goal when ALv2 was drafted
("to protect the foundation argument") [1], i don't see any reference
to the foundation in the ALv2 text itself and i dont see it any of the
FAQ or web pages from the legal committee.

[1] http://apache.markmail.org/thread/p6xtxoqb5n4juhfd

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> Actually, no that doesn't clear it up. To me that says, the PMC exists to
> thwart individual liability. Fair enough. A PMC initiated robot that presses
> a button to launch a release on ./dist should suffice then.
>
> The earlier statement made here:
>
>
> ""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.""
>
> …seems to contradict that is even necessary.
>
> Sorry I'm not trying to be difficult (REALLY!) but this is very unclear, and
> obviously it is very crucially important to be clear. The purpose of the
> thread and initiative for clarity.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Brian,
>>
>> This really old email from Roy may help -
>> http://markmail.org/message/ofxh3lkygcxiigf3
>>
>> -- dims
>>
>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>> > Ok, so end user software needs a vote to be a release and all projects
>> > are
>> > doing this without exception. If they are that is bad. Got it.
>> >
>> > Earlier:
>> >
>> > "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."
>> >
>> > Is the above statement incorrect also?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 23/05/2014 21:04, Joe Bowser wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti
>> >> > <pescetti@apache.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On 23/05/2014 Brian LeRoux wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Furthermore some projects such as OpenOffice mentioned
>> >> >>> earlier do not follow the policy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OpenOffice does follow the policy. The only "special" thing
>> >> >> OpenOffice
>> >> >> did
>> >> >> is to advertise development snapshots towards version 4.1 (these
are
>> >> >> NOT
>> >> >> releases! we conduct formal votes on ALL releases, including beta
>> >> >> releases!)
>> >> >> outside the dev mailing list since we have a dedicated QA mailing
>> >> >> lists
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> a testers community that does not coincide with our developers.
And
>> >> >> this was
>> >> >> discussed in advance with both the board and the infrastructure
>> >> >> lists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So, a snapshot is not a release?
>> >>
>> >> A snapshot is a release if only if it has been voted on as such by the
>> >> PMC. It would also have to be tagged as part of the release which to my
>> >> mind means it isn't really a snapshot. However the label that is
>> >> attached to the release (RC, beta, stable, snapshot, etc.) is
>> >> irrelevant. What matters is did the PMC vote on it. It the PMC voted
>> >> (and assuming the rest of the release policy was followed) and the vote
>> >> passed, it is a release. If that didn't happen then it isn't a release.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The problem is that there is one rule
>> >> > for certain projects that have the board's favour and another for
>> >> > projects that the board chooses to pick on for unknown reasons.
>> >>
>> >> Please provide some evidence to back up that assertion. I have been
>> >> following a reasonable proportion if the discussion around Cordova and
>> >> releases and, while I have seen plenty of evidence that the Cordova
>> >> community doesn't like the constraints imposed by the ASF release
>> >> policy, I have seen no evidence of the board doing anything other than
>> >> requiring Cordova to follow the same release policy every other ASF
>> >> project is expected to follow.
>> >>
>> >> If you are aware of any other ASF project not following the ASF release
>> >> policy then please make the board aware. The board does not actively
>> >> monitor the day to day activities of every project. If there are
>> >> problems they rely on the VP to make them aware via the quarterly
>> >> reports and if that route fails they rely on others in and around the
>> >> project to bring the problem to their attention.
>> >>
>> >> > Why isn't a snapshot build a release?
>> >>
>> >> Short answer - because the PMC didn't vote. Long answer - see above.
>> >>
>> >> In this particular case this was not an OpenOffice release because it
>> >> was not advertised to the end-user community for that software. It is
>> >> perfectly within the intent of the current policy to include members of
>> >> dedicated QA and test lists in the same category as members of the dev
>> >> list. It is to the credit of the OpenOffice community that they went as
>> >> far as checking that their understanding of the policy was correct
>> >> before they did anything.
>> >>
>> >> What would not be acceptable would be for OpenOffice to start
>> >> advertising snapshots to their end-user community unless votes had
>> >> taken
>> >> place and those snapshots had been formally released.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> Actually, no that doesn't clear it up. To me that says, the PMC exists to
> thwart individual liability. Fair enough. A PMC initiated robot that presses
> a button to launch a release on ./dist should suffice then.
>
> The earlier statement made here:
>
> ""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.""
>
> …seems to contradict that is even necessary.
>
> Sorry I'm not trying to be difficult (REALLY!) but this is very unclear, and
> obviously it is very crucially important to be clear. The purpose of the
> thread and initiative for clarity.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Brian,
>>
>> This really old email from Roy may help -
>> http://markmail.org/message/ofxh3lkygcxiigf3
>>
>> -- dims
>>
>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>> > Ok, so end user software needs a vote to be a release and all projects
>> > are
>> > doing this without exception. If they are that is bad. Got it.
>> >
>> > Earlier:
>> >
>> > "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."
>> >
>> > Is the above statement incorrect also?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 23/05/2014 21:04, Joe Bowser wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti
>> >> > <pescetti@apache.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On 23/05/2014 Brian LeRoux wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Furthermore some projects such as OpenOffice mentioned
>> >> >>> earlier do not follow the policy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OpenOffice does follow the policy. The only "special" thing
>> >> >> OpenOffice
>> >> >> did
>> >> >> is to advertise development snapshots towards version 4.1 (these
are
>> >> >> NOT
>> >> >> releases! we conduct formal votes on ALL releases, including beta
>> >> >> releases!)
>> >> >> outside the dev mailing list since we have a dedicated QA mailing
>> >> >> lists
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> a testers community that does not coincide with our developers.
And
>> >> >> this was
>> >> >> discussed in advance with both the board and the infrastructure
>> >> >> lists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So, a snapshot is not a release?
>> >>
>> >> A snapshot is a release if only if it has been voted on as such by the
>> >> PMC. It would also have to be tagged as part of the release which to my
>> >> mind means it isn't really a snapshot. However the label that is
>> >> attached to the release (RC, beta, stable, snapshot, etc.) is
>> >> irrelevant. What matters is did the PMC vote on it. It the PMC voted
>> >> (and assuming the rest of the release policy was followed) and the vote
>> >> passed, it is a release. If that didn't happen then it isn't a release.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The problem is that there is one rule
>> >> > for certain projects that have the board's favour and another for
>> >> > projects that the board chooses to pick on for unknown reasons.
>> >>
>> >> Please provide some evidence to back up that assertion. I have been
>> >> following a reasonable proportion if the discussion around Cordova and
>> >> releases and, while I have seen plenty of evidence that the Cordova
>> >> community doesn't like the constraints imposed by the ASF release
>> >> policy, I have seen no evidence of the board doing anything other than
>> >> requiring Cordova to follow the same release policy every other ASF
>> >> project is expected to follow.
>> >>
>> >> If you are aware of any other ASF project not following the ASF release
>> >> policy then please make the board aware. The board does not actively
>> >> monitor the day to day activities of every project. If there are
>> >> problems they rely on the VP to make them aware via the quarterly
>> >> reports and if that route fails they rely on others in and around the
>> >> project to bring the problem to their attention.
>> >>
>> >> > Why isn't a snapshot build a release?
>> >>
>> >> Short answer - because the PMC didn't vote. Long answer - see above.
>> >>
>> >> In this particular case this was not an OpenOffice release because it
>> >> was not advertised to the end-user community for that software. It is
>> >> perfectly within the intent of the current policy to include members of
>> >> dedicated QA and test lists in the same category as members of the dev
>> >> list. It is to the credit of the OpenOffice community that they went as
>> >> far as checking that their understanding of the policy was correct
>> >> before they did anything.
>> >>
>> >> What would not be acceptable would be for OpenOffice to start
>> >> advertising snapshots to their end-user community unless votes had
>> >> taken
>> >> place and those snapshots had been formally released.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com

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


Mime
View raw message