www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release Policy
Date Fri, 23 May 2014 15:29:18 GMT
On 23 May 2014 16:01, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> @mark agree, there are many layers to the stated legal perception and indeed
> most other OSS projects do not require a VOTE. It was communicated to me
> that the VOTE specifically mitigated risk to the releasing individual
> (publishing artifacts to ./dist). This, and human error, are mitigated by
> not using humans to perform those actions susceptible to human error. That
> is the point of a CI system and automated builds. All the actions of a
> release could be done by a machine and ensuring the policy will allow that
> is what I'm looking for.

However, the CI and automated build systems are created by fallible humans.

This is why it is important to ensure that the release vote contains
sufficient details for an independent check of the source release
contents against the SCM tag.

>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> Brian, we only specifically talked about whether we should be allowed to
>> give_intermediate_ build artifacts like nightly builds, etc to interested
>> people. I personally find it a bit too restrictive to not allow to publish
>> those for user testing. We (the foundation) already do this via our
>> snapshots maven repos...
>>
>> And there are also different layers of 'legal'. There is no law in the US
>> nor otherwhere in the world who requires a VOTE before an opensource
>> release. JBoss doesn't do it, Eclipse doesn't do it, etc.
>>
>> BUT: it is an ASF policy and thus binding for all our projects to VOTE on
>> releases.
>> And it is a really good one as it increases the technical and legal
>> quality of our products! It's really a good thing to have 10+ people looking
>> at a release and e.g. discovering that a file has the wrong license and
>> should get removed again for example. And of course it helps reducing the
>> risk from getting sued because we obviously try to minimize human errors.
>>
>> @Shane I'm not sure how many ASF members are subscribed to the legal list,
>> maybe it is enough if we just rise awareness.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 22 May 2014, 23:19, 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

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


Mime
View raw message