Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: unknown (nike.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
 aharui@adobe.com)
From: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Continuous release review
Thread-Topic: Continuous release review
Thread-Index: AQHPeoo201zYX+uQ1Ei/wP6EAkedg5tWJdCAgAAQmgD//5BjgA==
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 17:16:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CFAB643C.22DBD%aharui@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAOFYJNaqACY-JXUesx-V0PnsiCCkfVo_xKdEMO-N5Nt7Y_JTFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6F8EDB3F-12C5-4D0C-A379-E9AB4F99F391@jaguNET.com>
 <B97B3DBD-2937-4BE0-A127-92ED5B27ED84@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <B97B3DBD-2937-4BE0-A127-92ED5B27ED84@jaguNET.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
received-spf: None (: adobe.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <DE679FB44B28F144B0E1EDC82CD02285@namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


On 5/28/14 9:56 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

>Let's look at it this way... We need to recall that the ASF
>is a legal entity, a Delaware corporation with 501(c)3
>classification. We are also a *significant* player, resource
>and source in the IT eco-system.
>
>People want to play as if we were selling our
>kitchen made cookies at a yard sale; we just bake 'em,
>sell em, put the money in an old cigar box and
>basically just take it all easy and relaxed. Instead,
>we are more like Nabisco selling Nutter Butters
>(ignore any implication of quality, etc in this
>"analogy")... This is serious stuff we are doing,
>stuff that people take seriously, stuff that
>interests the IRS, the gov't, "partners", etc...
I get that there is a difference between potlucks and manufactured food.

What I think several of us want to explore is whether the current release
policy/process can be automated in places and still be serious about it.

For example, I bought some real estate last year, which I consider a
serious process, and was pleasantly surprised to see that some of the
paperwork could be digitally signed via web apps (but the final closing
document required traditional signing).  That was quite different that
when I last bought real estate merely 5 years ago.  Back then, it was all
paper and faxing and couriers.

And several of us are pushing on this topic because, I'm pretty sure that
any bank that still requires all paper and faxing and couriers is finding
itself at a competitive disadvantage against the banks that allow digital
signing.

So the question I have is: where can we use the differences in technology
over the past five years to save us time in the release process without
sacrificing being "serious".  I would offer that at least a couple of
things have changed:

1) smartphones make email available to many people virtually 24/7,
eliminating some of the reason for waiting 72 hours to close votes
2) CI servers and automated testing frameworks and security software has
evolved to the point where you can safely and securely create valid
artifacts without human intervention.

Thoughts?
-Alex


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