www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: [LEGAL-67] Who We Are, Legal Affairs
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:07:05 GMT
1. I don't like the metaphor about the hats. 
2. I think it would be good to have a list of legal committee members, but only so that one
can distinguish "official" responses on legal-discuss from people like me who express their
opinion but aren't speaking on behalf of the committee. Unfortunately, this often results
in people waiting for Sam to provide an "official" response.
3. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what "hats" there are besides VP of Legal and
Legal Committee member.

Ralph

On Mar 3, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
>>> i think it would be useful to have a fuller description of the legal
>>> affairs setup and who's who in it. i've attached a strawman to
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-67
>>> 
>>> opinions?
>>> objections?
>>> improvements? (feel free to patch JIRA or just add them )
>>> 
>>> if anyone thinks this is a bad idea or has any strong objections to the
>>> draft structure please jump as soon as possible.
>>> 
>>> i've included space for optional bios. it seems appropriate and
>>> potentially useful to me but i don't feel slightly ambivalent. opinions?
>> 
>> I don't get the bit about hats.
> 
> it's a straw man proposal - the intention is to provide thought :-)
> 
> one traditional way to talk about roles at Apache is through the
> metaphor of hats. one approach would be to create an approachable
> document using this metaphor, or we could just talk plainly about roles
> and reference the main hats bit.
> 
> opinions?
> 
>> I don't think we should list counsel, and no great desire to list the
>> committee. 
> 
> it interests me that there's a strong consensus that this public
> information should remain obfuscated. if we create a page describing
> roles and responsibilities in legal affairs then this poses the natural
> question "So who does what?". documentation without that information
> would seem more than a little odd to me.
> 
> but if the consensus is that Legal Affairs works best in mystery then
> i'm happy to drop the idea of documenting how it's supposed to work.
> 
>> JIRA permissions only allow the opener or PMC to resolve,
>> but there is the question of whose replies to listen to on
>> legal-discuss.
> 
> IMHO this depends on the role for legal-discuss. if legal problems are
> dealt with through a separate channel, and legal discuss is a discussion
> and policy forming forum then permissions should be good enough.
> 
> this would then raise the question of the right channel stuff that's not
> appropriate for the list
> 
> - robert
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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