There's been a lot of discussion on relaxing requirements, but I don't recall
any long-time ASF person explaining how fragile or durable the legal-shield and
the insurance rates for it are.
Ted and Roy (in other threads) seem to have said that Ted's bucket #1 is the
only thing that is a true
Hi,
> This is very interesting. I’m going to be digging into it.
There is also another presentation on releases, that will be up for vote in the
near future, [1] feedback welcome on that as well.
It's content may be subject to change :-)
Thanks,
Justin
1.
Hi,
It’s a pity that the people who are strongly for this position, don’t seem to
actually want to be involved in helping out, but just want to discuss and tell
the people actually doing the work are going the wrong way about this. :-)
> Be honest now. We are not talking a TLP release. This is
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 8:27 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> Hi,
>
> > It takes a new mindset. What is the *bare* minimum MUST? Two items?
> > maaaybe three?
>
> Given this is probably a radical departure, would it be best to do as an
> experiment with a couple of podlings? Small reversible
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 8:20 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Big +1 to the above. I would strongly suggest trying to resolve
> > this first between IPMC and ASF Legal Committee
>
> JFYI - I’ve tried to do this before and was told (by aboard member) it was
> the boards policy not the Legal
Hi,
> Big +1 to the above. I would strongly suggest trying to resolve
> this first between IPMC and ASF Legal Committee
JFYI - I’ve tried to do this before and was told (by aboard member) it was the
boards policy not the Legal Committer.
Thanks,
Justin
A few comments based on various excellent previous posts:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 12:34 AM Hen wrote:
> I don't see a need to go to the board on this :)
Big +1 to the above. I would strongly suggest trying to resolve
this first between IPMC and ASF Legal Committee
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 6:33 PM
There are three kinds of release constraints at Apache. Only one is
critical for new podlings.
1. Legal constraints on whether Apache has the right to distribute the
source code in question and link to any non-source dependencies. This
mostly applies to projects coming out of commercial entities,
Hi,
> It takes a new mindset. What is the *bare* minimum MUST? Two items?
> maaaybe three?
Given this is probably a radical departure, would it be best to do as an
experiment with a couple of podlings? Small reversible steps. Would you be
willing to work on a proposal to the board and act
The entire note below sounds like "business as usual. we haven't learned
anything."
Release offsite is not a solution, IMO. I believe it is Best(tm) to have a
DISCLAIMER.txt in the incubator/$podling/release/ directory, and "podling
releases" which do not meet our normal policies for TLPs. I
Hi,
> (2) We all know that for many incubating projects immediately requiring full
> Release Policy compliance is too steep a slope.
This is solved by allowing them to make non Apache releases out side of the
ASF. We currently do this. However branding and release policy also need to be
Hi,
> I agree with other respondents that 'serious' seems bad here. To me the
> serious ones are the only ones they can't release with.
So we just continue as is then? You have any suggests to what we change?
> ReleaseBlocking: Has a LICENSE. Legally permitted to release and complies
> with
Hi -
This is very interesting. I’m going to be digging into it.
Regards,
Dave
> On Jun 8, 2019, at 8:09 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please keep the discussion here and not in the vote thread,
>
> Even if not voting, mentors and IPMC members may want to talk a look at the
>
Top Post.
(1) We are losing track of the goal. The goal is to make it easier for
incubating projects to begin to follow Foundation Release and Distribution
Policies on their path to adopting the Apache Way, building a Community and
graduating to become a TLP project. I think the IPMC has
Hi,
Sorry to be clearer re the short header issue I suggest you read [1]. It may be
used with mages, minified JavaScript or PDFs, that’s not the case where it’s
been used in your releases and this has been pointed out several times. If
there are other cases where you have confirmed with
> > We've also discussed the use of "short licenses" [5] and we document our
> use of the short licenses
>
> Which I see was some time ago but this keeps happening in your releases.
>
You are correct that we have an outstanding item to tighten our automated
checks inline with the project's
Hi,
> I conclude that all are left over from before the project entered the Apache
> Incubator and the period of transition that followed.
I though that was the case bur was just checking. But beauty IBM need to be
respectful of the trademark and the (P)PMC make sure they do that.
> The
Hi,
> For several of the issues you noted, I opened github defects [1-4] against
> the relevant repos so that we will address them before the next release of
> the corresponding artifacts.
Thanks for that.
> We've also discussed the use of "short licenses" [5] and we document our use
> of
Thanks for these links. I went through many of the links you provided and
conducted my own search as well. I conclude that all are left over from
before the project entered the Apache Incubator and the period of
transition that followed. We addressed the use of IBM OpenWhisk and Bluemix
OpenWhisk
> I also note that you’ve been given feedback on several releases that have
> had mirror issue, but the issues don’t seem to have been fixed. Is there a
> plan to do so before graduation? e.g
>
For several of the issues you noted, I opened github defects [1-4] against the
relevant repos so that we will address them before the next release of the
corresponding artifacts. We've also discussed the use of "short licenses" [5]
and we document our use of the short licenses and license
Copying the proposal in so I have something to respond to :)
> Proposal
>
> That the IPMC can allow releases with serious issues in them to be
released and distributed without IPMC or legal VP approval. When this
occurs
I agree with other respondents that 'serious' seems bad here. To me the
22 matches
Mail list logo
