I think by far the most important thing to realize is that we are trying
to come up with well understood, basic guidelines for collaborative
community governance here, under the broad umbrella of the Apache Way
and an ASF podling. We are not trying to come up with an international
treaty with multinational repercussions, nor are we trying to come up
with a detailed technical specification for a global technology standard.
I applaud attempts to make the overall proposal better understood by the
whole community, but have to say the overly detailed and legalistic
parsing of the wording is over the top here.
The main caveat for all of this is: the Apache OOo PPMC is the
responsible body - as a whole - for managing and providing oversight of
any content published from the project; this includes the website. So
whatever details are agreed here will always be subject to revision (by
appropriate votes or consensus) as the community grows.
On 10/11/2011 4:32 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Rob Weir<[email protected]> wrote:
...snip...
*C.* Forum admins must sign the ICLA. They will interact with the
Apache Infra group and should be official project members. At least
one Moderator, who will sign the ICLA, or Admin on every NL forum will
commit to reporting forum status to the Project as determined by the
Apache OpenOffice PPMC
Working with Apache Infra requires you have an Apache ID. Without an
ID you cannot get onto their mailing list. Without an ID you have no
identity in the system that they can assign permissions to. What is
really required is becoming a Committer. That's what gets you an
Apache ID. Signing the iCLA is a pre-req for becoming a committer.
But the iCLA by itself is not enough.
Actually anyone is welcome to work with Apache infra on their normal
mailing lists or even open JIRAs to get work done, so there's no strict
need for Apache IDs in many cases; not sure where you got that idea.
However there are many tasks that are simpler to do within the ASF if
the requester is a committer, so it certainly helps to be a committer.
...snip...
*D.* Moderators and Volunteers will keep their current functions and
will be created through the traditional process of nomination and lazy
consensus on the forum.
If I read Dennis's cover letter correctly, he is asking the PPMC to
bind ourselves to this proposal. Do we really want to bind ourselves
to a decision making process and say that we will never change it? Do
we want to say that even if the forum volunteers, in the future, want
to change the "traditional process", they cannot because the PPMC
agreed previously to maintain this process?
Maybe just say something like "Existing moderators and Volunteers will
keep their current functions. New moderators and volunteers will be
created through the traditional process of nomination and lazy
consensus on the forum, or by other means as the project may determine
in the future".
Most of this is not a legal contract requiring binding signatures in
triplicate, so personally, whatever people want to write here is fine
with me. I would hope that everyone is aware that how the project
operates *is* going to change in the future as it grows - and the way
that the project operates will follow the Apache Way of consensus-driven
and collaborative changes.
*E.* Any [Apache Member|http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html]
or [Apache OpenOffice
PPMC|http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html] member can
request Apache Observer status and thereby gain read and write access
to all forums, including Forum Issues, and have read access to the
logs. Apache Observers will not have the capability to edit, delete or
move posts or perform administrative functions unless otherwise
elected to those positions by normal forum rules.
This is good. However, I think we need someone with the ability to
edit, delete, etc. Someone with oversite authority should have all of
those permissions. Maybe the IPMC Chair? Maybe Apache Infra? (Maybe
they have that ability already?).
Since infra will be hosting the system, I would certainly expect they
can grant write rights as needed for ASF business.
...snip...
*G.* The new Terms of Use will be similar to the current ToU,
particularly the clause that
"You hereby grant to the Host and all Users a royalty-free, perpetual,
irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right
and license under Your intellectual property rights to reproduce,
modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from,
distribute, perform, display and use Your Submissions (in whole or
part) and to incorporate them in other works in any form, media, or
technology now known or later developed, all subject to the obligation
to retain any copyright notices included in Your Submissions. All
Users, the Host, and their sublicensees are responsible for any
modifications they make to the Submissions of others." Note that
Apache Legal will review and approve the final ToUs, which will also
ensure that sufficient rights are granted to consider contributions
under the Apache License.
Looks OK to me, but IANAL. Has this been reviewed?
Any ToUs definitely need ASF Legal signoff before being posted.
Likewise, there are a number of minor but required details to work out
separately, like how infra actually hosts it, and what parts of the
Apache Project Branding Requirements will be needed on the site. But
those are technical details we can work out in implementation.
- Shane
