nicolaken 2004/06/18 09:36:25
Modified: site faq.xml
Log:
Remove the Apache FAQ section, moved it to the main Apache faq.
Revision Changes Path
1.10 +0 -197 incubator/site/faq.xml
Index: faq.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/incubator/site/faq.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -r1.9 -r1.10
--- faq.xml 18 Mar 2004 11:53:04 -0000 1.9
+++ faq.xml 18 Jun 2004 16:36:25 -0000 1.10
@@ -3,203 +3,6 @@
<faqs title="Frequently Asked Questions">
- <part id="apache_organization">
- <title>About the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)</title>
-
- <faq id="is_ASF_a_corporation">
- <question>
- Is the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) a Corporation?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <p>Yes, the ASF is a membership-based corporation registered in
Delaware,
- United States. It is intended to be a registered non-profit
charity,
- and in fact was given 501(c)(3) status by the U.S. Internal
Revenue
- Service. However, even if something happens that changes that
status,
- the ASF is still a not-for-profit enterprise.
- </p>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- <faq id="why_apache_inc">
- <question>
- Why did Apache incorporate?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <p>The ASF was incorporated to provide a legal entity which could
shield
- the developers working on its code.
- </p>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- <faq id="Foundation_burdens">
- <question>
- Does being a Foundation bring additional burdens in how Apache
operates?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <p>Along with being a corporation come some boring niggly details.
- The people who have the responsibilities of watching over the
- Foundation's activities, and keeping them on track and out of
- trouble, are the ASF's Board of Directors. The board consists
- of nine individuals elected by the Foundation's membership and
- invested by the membership with the authority to run the
Foundation
- and make tactical and strategic decisions concerning it. (A lot
of
- developers consider that boring and tedious.)
- </p>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- <faq id="what_is_ASF_composed_of">
- <question>
- Is it true that some companies are part of Apache?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <p>No.
- </p>
- <p>The membership of the ASF is composed of individuals,
- not companies. The members have a legal stake in the ASF.
- </p>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- <faq id="who_owns_apache_code">
- <question>
- Who owns the Apache code?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <p>All software developed within the Foundation belongs to the ASF,
- and therefore the members. The members own the code and the
- direction of it and the Foundation. Committers get a shot at
- working on the code; good committers become members and thus get
- a piece of the ownership of the software and the direction.
- Commit access is a privilege, not a right, and is based on trust.
- </p>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- <faq id="how_is_apache_organized">
- <question>
- How is Apache organized?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <ul>
- <li>projects</li>
- <li>members</li>
- <li>board</li>
- <li>committers</li>
- <li>officers</li>
- <li>pmcs</li>
- </ul>
- <note>Need to add about what they do, privileges, responsibilities,
how to get to be one.
- Patched welcome :-)
- </note>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- <faq id="legal_liability">
- <question>
- What about legal liability for committers, PMC members, ASF members,
officers and directors?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <p>The last three are covered by section 12.1 of the Bylaws (but
committers and
- PMC members are not obviously discussed).
- </p>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- <faq id="why_are_PMC_chairs_officers">
- <question>
- Why are PMC Chairs officers of the corporation?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <source>
-From: Greg Stein
-Subject: officers and liability
-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:28:15 -0800
-
-On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:33:19PM -0500, someone wrote:
-> On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 03:55 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
-> > On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 12:07 AM, someone wrote:
-> >> On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 02:41 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
-> >> ... the Bylaws, Veeps are definitely officers. ...
-> >>
-> >> It might be preferable then that PMC chairs not be VP.
-> >
-> > Absolutely not! That is the whole basis of letting PMCs manage
-> > portions of the ASF code without technical interference from the
-> > board/members.
->
-> I certainly don't pretend to have any competence in corp. governance
-> law. I assume Roy knows his stuff about this all. I'd love to be
-> educated. How does the officer/non-officer status of a PMC chair have
-> any effect on the board's level of technical oversight - I'd have
-> assumed that was entirely a matter for the board to configure within
-> the limits of their model of their responsibilities - legal and
-> otherwise. I can't image that they gain much liability protection by
-> making an officer the head of a PMC? This structure seems to only
-> increases the number of parties personally at risk when the foundation
-> is sued. I am probably missing something.
-
-An officer of the corporation is, by definition, acting on behalf of the
-corporation. So the oversight that the ASF requires is occurring (oversight
-is not embodied in the Board, but the ASF as a whole; the Board is just the
-main driver of corporate affairs).
-
-And since the officer is acting on behalf of the corporation, there is no
-personal liability -- standard corporate assumption of liability occurs. If
-the officer was *not* acting in accordance with their stated role, then yes:
-they would be personally liable.
-
-Since the ASF is assuming liability, that is where our cash hoard comes in,
-in case of problems.
-
-Does that help to clear things up?
-
--------------------------------
-
-From: "Roy T. Fielding"
-Subject: Re: officers and liability
-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:58:43 -0800
-
-What Greg said, with the addition that officers and members are
-further indemnified in accordance with our bylaws (meaning we also
-take care of their legal expenses if sued do to their role's actions).
-
-PMC chairs must be officers because the board can only delegate things
-to employees or officers. It is impossible to delegate authority to
-someone who has no authority.
-
-[these musings are based on my recollection of discussions with Drew
-when we set up the foundation]
-
-....Roy
-</source>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- <faq id="what_is_apache_about">
- <question>
- What is Apache about?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <p>Transparancy, consensus, non-affiliation,
- respect for fellow developers, and meritocracy, in no specific
order.
- </p>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- <faq id="what_is_apache_not_about">
- <question>
- What is Apache <strong>not</strong> about?
- </question>
- <answer>
- <p>To flame someone to shreds, to make code decisions on IRC,
- to demand someone else to fix your bugs.
- </p>
- </answer>
- </faq>
-
- </part>
-
<part id="incubator">
<title>Incubator</title>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
