On 8 October 2017 at 23:00, Chris Mattmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cool page!
>
> What does this have to do with Legal?

See Shane's reply earlier in the thread.

> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On 10/8/17, 2:42 PM, "sebb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     On 8 October 2017 at 22:29, Chris Mattmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>     > Hey Team,
>     >
>     > Sorry I am missing the context here. What’s up? How can I help?
>
>     This is related to the checks here:
>
>     https://whimsy.apache.org/site/
>
>     > Cheers,
>     > Chris
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 10/8/17, 3:41 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[email protected]> wrote:
>     >
>     >     sebb wrote on 10/8/17 6:29 AM:
>     >     > Some of the website checks don't have pointers to documentation:
>     >     >
>     >     > events
>     >
>     >     Rich, do you have a public written URL that requires (or asks) 
> projects
>     >     to include the code snippet for the apachecon events listing?  Or is
>     >     this not maintained currently?
>     >
>     >     
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/events/README.txt
>     >
>     >     > image
>     >     This is Sally as VP, Marketing & Publicity, since she owns the a.o
>     >     homepage.  I don't know if it's a requirement yet, but it's used to
>     >     generate links on the homepage; so projects without an image there 
> will
>     >     look pretty dumb with an image placeholder.  I'll ask her.
>     >
>     >     See also:
>     >     
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/img/HEADER.html
>     >
>     >     > copyright
>     >     This would be Chris as VP, Legal, I presume.  I never thought about 
> it,
>     >     but I believe it's important and should absolutely be a requirement.
>     >
>     >     > I assume there are reasons for including these checks, in which 
> case
>     >     > the doc links are needed.
>     >     >
>     >     > Anyone know where to find these requirements?
>     >     >
>     >     > If not, the checks should be dropped from the analysis/display 
> (if not
>     >     > the extraction phase)
>     >     >
>     >
>     >     No, they should not be dropped, because they are still clearly 
> useful -
>     >     although UI to mark them separately would be fine.  I.e. the 
> "image" may
>     >     not (yet) be an ASF *requirement*, it's still an important thing to 
> have
>     >     a check for.
>     >
>     >     --
>     >
>     >     - Shane
>     >       https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>

Reply via email to