Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > Guys, aren't you forgetting something? The VP is to sign the Board report. And not even that. All I do is ensure the report is submitted on time, no signing is involved, and while I generally write the majority of the report anyone can contribute or help out in doing that. >

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > After we resolve this, I *really* would like to switch the convo around to a > discussion as deep, and as involved, but related to the other (IMO, more > important) side of the Incubator coin: education in the Apache Way. So much > derives from that... even the legal considerations of

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:59 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > On Jul 3, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > > > > This is correct. Provided we *do* explicitly acknowledge that special > > status of the Incubator. > > > > This acknowledgement will basically put podling source code

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 3, 2019, at 2:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 3, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > No. The other way around. What are the expectation of protections that > a legal shield is offering to PPMC *today*. > > IOW, what do folks expect ASF to provide. Given the IPMC makes the release, isn’t the question more what protection does it give the IPMC? (And those people with

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > On Jul 3, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > >> > >> 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the > >> foundation when they do a release > > > > Let's be pedantic and define those in this

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Jim Jagielski wrote on Wed, 03 Jul 2019 16:59 -0400: > IMO, we want 2 things: > > 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the > foundation when they do a release > > 2. The outside world, and esp downstream end-users, to know that > podling releases should be

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

David Nalley wrote on Wed, 03 Jul 2019 16:21 -0400: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:38 PM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:27 PM Greg Stein wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean > > > wrote: > > > >... > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > Although

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> >> 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the >> foundation when they do a release > > Let's be pedantic and define those in this particular case, shall we? > What exactly are the expectations for PPMC

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:59 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > > > > This is correct. Provided we *do* explicitly acknowledge that special > > status of the Incubator. > > > > This acknowledgement will basically put podling source code releases

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > This is correct. Provided we *do* explicitly acknowledge that special > status of the Incubator. > > This acknowledgement will basically put podling source code releases > at the same level we have convenience binary releases. Which

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:38 PM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:27 PM Greg Stein wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean > > wrote: > > >... > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for > > > each

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

+1. > On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Guys, aren't you forgetting something? The VP is to sign the Board > report. Everything else that Justin is doing he's doing as a rank and > file Incubator committer. If you disagree with Justin, that's one > thing, but his being

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

In the incubator, leadership is also very important. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:50 AM Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Guys, aren't you forgetting something? The VP is to sign the Board > report. Everything else that Justin is doing he's doing as a rank and > file Incubator committer. If you

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Guys, aren't you forgetting something? The VP is to sign the Board report. Everything else that Justin is doing he's doing as a rank and file Incubator committer. If you disagree with Justin, that's one thing, but his being VP is orthogonal to your disagreement.

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Let me add my vote of full confidence in Justin as VP Incubator. He is doing an excellent job. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:41 AM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:48 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > > > IMO, stop being pessimistic. Move forward with change to stop the > gating, > > >

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:48 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > > IMO, stop being pessimistic. Move forward with change to stop the gating, > > > and let podlings do their releases without all the IPMC burden. > > > > We want to be at “D” or “E” , we’re currently at “A” and there's a few > > steps that

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:27 PM Greg Stein wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean > wrote: > >... > > > Hi, > > > > > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for > > each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal > > considerations

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:07 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is > > there for. > > For that to happen I think the disclaimer text would need to change, I’m > assuming you don’t think that. Even so a DISCLAIMER doesn’t

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 1:01 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > >> Jim said "Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT >> to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The >> Apache Way” > > If you look at the history threads I posted the other

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, Of historical interest - “legal oversight” goes back to some to some the very first email about the incubator in 2003. Here's one [1] slightly later from Jim in 2005 who seemed to think back then legal aspects were important. Perhaps that's out of context, and you had to be there, it’s

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is > there for. For that to happen I think the disclaimer text would need to change, I’m assuming you don’t think that. Even so a DISCLAIMER doesn’t remove legal obligations. > I don't recall that advice. In fact,

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean wrote: >... > Hi, > > > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for > each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal > considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a Or we *don't* provide legal

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for each > PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal considerations > "kick in" as it were. So we need a clear "paper trail" of approvals for that > PPMC to enjoy the legal protection the foundation exists

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > Jim said "Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT > to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache > Way” If you look at the history threads I posted the other day one was about “legal oversight” way back in 2004. Thanks, Justin

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

tion and guidance into The Apache > Way" > > I say... HEAR! HEAR! > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > > From: Jim Jagielski > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 4:36:02 AM > To: Incubator General > Subject: Re: Podling

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Jagielski Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 4:36:02 AM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache > On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > FWIW, I reconcile it as: > > Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call somet

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

> On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > FWIW, I reconcile it as: > > Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call something an > ASF release in order to place that release under the legal protection of the > ASF. ASF releases may have policy non-compliance

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hey Alex, The Incubator plays a special role. We should be willing to take on some risks in the process of helping newer, or older projects adjust to us. But once those adjustments are complete, we should be able to expect TLP's to "color in the lines". If you believe that is impossible for

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

HI, > But it is up to any TLP. I wouldn't go that far for instance see [1] ("Projects MUST notify the Board…") and [2] ("Deviations from this policy may have an adverse effect …”) and [3] ("Every ASF release MUST comply with ASF licensing policy.”) As someone said in another thread a

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

FWIW, I reconcile it as: Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call something an ASF release in order to place that release under the legal protection of the ASF. ASF releases may have policy non-compliance issues. No TLP can decide on its own to never comply with policy.

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

I do -not- have a problem where this is all tracking towards and believe it is right, but I do have a problem with how it is justified and explained. People say: "Incubator is a PMC/TLP", "Incubator takes on the resultant legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release", "we can NOT allow

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:59 PM Justin Mclean wrote: >... > > It appears there is general consensus that "right to distribute closed > source" would be the main and potentially only blocker for podlings. > > That is not the case (re this is a blocker) I suggest you read that legal > thread

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > Recall that with other PMCs, the PMCs themselves are directly responsible for > the development of the code. Not so with the IPMC. Where is this documented? Where has the board granted this? It’s not in the IPMC's policy or in it charter. IMO Until that happens it always going to be a

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > An "exception" would be a potentially permanent allowance of non-compliance. Exceptions when given have been temporary and not permanent. > It appears there is general consensus that "right to distribute closed > source" would be the main and potentially only blocker for podlings.

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On 6/27/19, 10:57 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: But VP legal said as much the other day. "we can NOT allow any relaxation of the ASF release policy for a TLP.” I interpret that to mean that a TLP must eventually get around to fixing non-compliance. A TLP cannot stop attempting to

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:57 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > >> The Incubator itself is a PMC. > > OK that's sorted. > >> Now let's talk about podling releases... When the IPMC votes on accepting a >> podling release, and it passes, my opinion is that the Incubator takes on >> the

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > While you've been going through the history and other docs: Does it actually > say somewhere that a true ASF release MUST NOT contain any non-compliance of > policy? Again I’m not sure why you’re talking about TLP policy on the incubator general list. But VP legal said as much the

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

While you've been going through the history and other docs: Does it actually say somewhere that a true ASF release MUST NOT contain any non-compliance of policy? Or is it possible that the communities must fix some non-compliance issues right away and can fix others later? Then it isn't

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > The Incubator itself is a PMC. OK that's sorted. > Now let's talk about podling releases... When the IPMC votes on accepting a > podling release, and it passes, my opinion is that the Incubator takes on the > resultant legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release. Now the >

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > Only because IPMC said it must provide such votes. Can you provide a reference to that? I realise that may be hard to do so given it was so long ago. I searched and was unable to find where that happened in the the list history. The earliest reference I could find was this [1] (in

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Sam Ruby wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:57 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:13 AM Justin Mclean > > > wrote: > > > > > > b) It listed as a TLP in Whimsy > > > > Whimsy is not canonical. Its label means absolutely nothing. Board > >

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:57 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:13 AM Justin Mclean > wrote: > > > > b) It listed as a TLP in Whimsy > > Whimsy is not canonical. Its label means absolutely nothing. Board > decisions are canonical. The canonical source is:

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

My +1 to the 2nd camp. For me it's about transparency. I don't see an issue if a podling release has some significant flaws. For me, the ideal would be if it is easy for podling members, reviewers, and downstream users to easily determine whether such flaws are known and what they are. It can be

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

> On Jun 25, 2019, at 9:49 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > > On 6/24/19, 9:12 AM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: > >> What kinds of policy violations truly affect the legal shield if the >> non-compliance: > >You're asking the wrong question. You're still asking the TLP question. > > I'm

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:13 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > Which would be a reasonable assumption give: > > a) That only IPMC votes are binding on releases. > Only because IPMC said it must provide such votes. I maintain it does not have to. The Board gave the Incubator the range/duty

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > Which would be a reasonable assumption give: > a) That only IPMC votes are binding on releases. > b) It listed as a TLP in Whimsy > c) The resolution that formed it uses the same language as a TLP and talks > abut forming a PMC and assigning a VP [1] > > Does anyone know the history

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:07 PM Sam Ruby wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:12 PM Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:03 PM Alex Harui > > wrote: > > > > > > But, IMO, the reason the question went to VP Legal is that it doesn't > > > really matter what the IPMC

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:12 PM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:03 PM Alex Harui wrote: > > > > But, IMO, the reason the question went to VP Legal is that it doesn't > > really matter what the IPMC thinks if their "business decision" will have > > an impact on the

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On 6/24/19, 9:12 AM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: > What kinds of policy violations truly affect the legal shield if the non-compliance: You're asking the wrong question. You're still asking the TLP question. I'm asking the TLP question to understand how big the difference is

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:03 PM Alex Harui wrote: > > But, IMO, the reason the question went to VP Legal is that it doesn't really > matter what the IPMC thinks if their "business decision" will have an impact > on the "Legal Shield" and the insurance premiums that go with it. So I think >

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:26 PM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > A couple of thoughts: > > And a couple of thoughts on top of that. > > > Podlings are not permitted to call themselves "Apache Foo" because they are > > not yet full Apache

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 6:31 PM Rich Bowen wrote: > > A couple of thoughts: > > Podlings are not permitted to call themselves "Apache Foo" because they are > not yet full Apache projects. > Actually we compel them to call themselves Apache Foo (incubating)

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

++1. I agree w/ Rich and Roman > On Jun 23, 2019, at 11:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Rich Bowen > wrote: >> >> A couple of thoughts: > > And a couple of thoughts on top of that. > >> Podlings are not permitted to call

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, Thanks to David for a very good summary of the historical situation and Davor for IMO correctly summing up peoples positions. I think both of those replies are worth a very careful read. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe,

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > What kinds of policy violations truly affect the legal shield if the > non-compliance: > 1) is actually released > 2) released but noted in RELEASE_NOTES or DISCLAIMER > 3) released but not corrected in the next release This question (in a slightly different form) was in the proposal to

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Hi, > Correct. The I way I see this thread is this: *when it comes to > releases*, there’s always been two camps in Incubator. One thinks that > Incubator is a TLP… Which would be a reasonable assumption give: a) That only IPMC votes are binding on releases. b) It listed as a TLP in Whimsy c)

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

But, IMO, the reason the question went to VP Legal is that it doesn't really matter what the IPMC thinks if their "business decision" will have an impact on the "Legal Shield" and the insurance premiums that go with it. So I think the question got lost on legal-discuss. The "space of options"

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:04 PM Greg Stein wrote: > I disagree. I see a number of people who think that podling releases are > TLP-level releases from the Incubator itself. I see people wanting > structure/policy/rules to ensure these TLP releases are done properly. And > that some want to "fix

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:55 PM Davor Bonaci wrote: > I wouldn't say that there are 2 camps. The IPMC seems to be overwhelmingly > in the "2nd camp", with its desire to be lenient with the releases and > rules. > I disagree. I see a number of people who think that podling releases are

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

+1 to 2nd camp. And even less requirements than have been suggested, I would offer. For example: if the tarball is missing a LICENSE or NOTICE file? Who cares. It's still a legal release. Just hard for downstream users to consume. But they *can*. Nothing stopping somebody from trying out the

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

I wouldn't say that there are 2 camps. The IPMC seems to be overwhelmingly in the "2nd camp", with its desire to be lenient with the releases and rules. What I see is: [1] David is saying (correctly) how Incubator is structured right now. He hasn't expressed ~any opinions; it is just an

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Thanks Roman! +1 to the 2nd camp! Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 23, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Rich Bowen wrote: >> >> A couple of thoughts: > > And a couple of thoughts on top of that. > >> Podlings are not permitted to

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

IMO, there's an actual test case going on right now. On 6/14, the Weex folks asked about an LGPL dependency which became LEGAL-464. Personally, I think it could be classified as a "runtime/platform" so that the CatX rules don't apply. But they have been held up for 9 days and counting. Who

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Rich Bowen wrote: > > A couple of thoughts: And a couple of thoughts on top of that. > Podlings are not permitted to call themselves "Apache Foo" because they are > not yet full Apache projects. Correct. The I way I see this thread is this: *when it comes to

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

I find TVM concentrating on moving their community to Apache first to be very refreshing. I think that may allow an eyes wide open approach to Apache governance. I think a soft approach to policy compliance will yield better, happier Apache communities. The Incubator should celebrate the

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

A couple of thoughts: Podlings are not permitted to call themselves "Apache Foo" because they are not yet full Apache projects. While in the incubator we should expect podlibgs to fail at the rules. They're new to them and many of them feel arbitrary, even capricious, to those coming in from

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

ในวันที่ ศ. 21 มิ.ย. 2019 23:22 Alex Harui เขียนว่า: > It all makes sense to me. I think there are two key points that are > driving all of this discussion: > > "5. Disclaimers generally don't remove liability" > > IANAL so I don't know if that's true or not. For sure there are lots of >

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

It all makes sense to me. I think there are two key points that are driving all of this discussion: "5. Disclaimers generally don't remove liability" IANAL so I don't know if that's true or not. For sure there are lots of disclaimers in the world. I do not know the history of the current

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

I second every single sentence said here. Every. Single. Sentence. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM David Nalley wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion in various threads about bureaucracy, > whether podlings are part of the ASF, etc. As a result of that I've > spent a good deal of time

Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

There's been a lot of discussion in various threads about bureaucracy, whether podlings are part of the ASF, etc. As a result of that I've spent a good deal of time reading resolutions and older discussions and organizing those thoughts from a legal and community perspective. I've also read a