> There are many communication channels e.g. Slack, WeChat, DingTalk. What will happen to these in the future and who controls them? Will control of these be transferred to the PMC?
These channels are not included in the proposal and we're going to remove the entries from README or other content during the entering stage. For users channel, we plan to maintain (1) GitHub Discussions & Issues (2) dev@ mailing list. (1) will be redirected to the list with INFRA set up. For a user@ list, we may create one if it is necessary. Other IM channels, during the project building experience, it's less active. So the PMC may not maintain it or advertise it. If we later find a necessity to run those channels under the PMC brand, we'll start a discussion then. > ring is licensed FYI - https://github.com/briansmith/ring/issues/1827 Also, this is a widely used Rust basic crate that I assume most of the Rust code released from ASF projects can suffer the same concern. I have optimistic assumptions that all the ecosystems affected by these concerns should be able to work out a solution/resolution. Best, tison. tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2023年11月27日周一 09:38写道： > > The ring license seems to include BSD-style licenses with advertising > clauses. These are considered category X. > > This is once discovered in [1] and the description is: > > ring is licensed under a mix of [MIT, ISC, and OpenSSL’s licenses]( > https://github.com/briansmith/ring/blob/main/LICENSE). OpenSSL itself is > licensed under [Apache 2.0]( > https://www.openssl.org/source/apache-license-2.0.txt). So ring is Apache > 2.0 compatible. > > You're right that the LICENSE file contains some sentences about the > advertising > clauses, but that may not be correct. I'll contact the upstream to see if > we can revise the license terms. > > > I‘m curious about the name change and why the original name is being > kept. How you provide a bit more detail on this? > > This is included in the proposal: Since Ant Group wants to retain the > brand of CeresDB, we renamed the OSS project as HoraeDB before this > proposal. > > I suppose it's what happened in the other direction for the Answer podling > story. > > > Looking at the existing governance, I see that 2/3 of existing PMC > members are needed to vote for a new PMC member. I assume this requirement > will be dropped? > > Yep. Simply follow the basic ASF governance as a start is expected. > > Best, > tison. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/px7wjcjy3rd4s59d4d3ll1x6y11d240r > > > Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> 于2023年11月27日周一 07:30写道： > >> Hi, >> >> Looking at the existing governance, I see that 2/3 of existing PMC >> members are needed to vote for a new PMC member. I assume this requirement >> will be dropped? >> >> There are many communication channels e.g. Slack, WeChat, DingTalk. What >> will happen to these in the future and who controls them? Will control of >> these be transferred to the PMC? >> >> I‘m curious about the name change and why the original name is being >> kept. How you provide a bit more detail on this? >> >> Kind Regards, >> Justin >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >>
