> That Infra and the board will allow a podling to put packages containing the 
> WIP-disclaimer on dist.a.o as long as those packages

Infra have already confirmed that’s OK, legal have said it OK with some 
conditions, including if incubator releases are considered special. There is a 
proposal in the incubator board report to do this, hopefully the board will 
accept it.

> This new disclaimer should allow mentors to allow the podlings to publish 
> packages for their users the way they probably did before entering incubation.

Not quite, but it does relax things, see [1]

>  The podlings will have the option to push the packages to dist.a.o and then, 
> if they want the legal shield protection, call for a vote from the IPMC if 
> they don't have 3 mentor votes.  

I’m not sure this should be optional, or up to the PPMC to decide, but it's an 
interesting idea to consider. Reason being is that the PPMC may not be in the 
best position (being new to the ASF) to recognise what the risk is. I’m not 
sure what the risk is or how (or if at all) it might impact on the insurance.

> The key risk here is whether the WIP disclaimer will help ward off possible 
> legal action by a user of the package.

A disclaimer ultimately is probably no protection. For instance, you can’t put 
up a sign in a shop that says “No Refunds” when you have a right to a refund 
under consumer law. But I think the intention is clear that podlings what to do 
the right thing.

>  The new disclaimer should greatly reduce the chances of a -1 vote.  Instead, 
> issues found will be logged in the podling's bug tracker.

Yep that was the whole idea.

>  Practically speaking, if Justin is one of the 3 mentors, the podiing is 
> probably in good shape heading towards graduation, of not, it probably is a 
> good idea to get Justin to review the packages at some point.

Well the objective should be learn how to review releases on their own, rather 
than rely on me to check it for you, as you’re going to have to do that as a 

>  It was this late gate which was stricter with the old disclaimer that was 
> the problem for Zipkin.

There were a larger number of issue steer as well. (Also while in incubation 
Zipkin made non offical releases.)


1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-469

Reply via email to