RE: Indemnification of the PMC
- Original message From: Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:58:55 + Subject: RE: Indemnification of the PMC Seems to me that part of the reason it is difficult to resolve the issues confronting Jakarta is that several initial assumptions are required, and that these are not stated or clearly implied anywhere. Greg assures us that the board aren't likely to act precipitately (if thats how you spell it), and we haven't had official communications from The Members of The Board on the topic, yet there are a lot of hints about the unsuitability of Jakarta's present organisation. I think we could do with some concrete direction, or at least an affirmation of our mandate to continue what we are currently doing. Because to me it is increasingly feeling like we're trying to fix something which (apart from a few details like the bylaws) isn't broken on the basis of speculation and conjecture, and the danger in that is obvious, we'll end up breaking the thing we're trying to fix, or failing to fix the parts which are broken. And with the utmost respect for Sam hopefully that is something a new Chairman, with more time and fresh enthusiasm for the role, will be able to provide. Well, first, the idea of consensus is at the core of the Apache culture. Consensus means that everyone involved has agreed that a course of action is the best available. It may not be everyone's first choice, but it is a solution everyone can live with. Consensus is not something that is easy to represent in a list of rules and procedures. It's a process of human engineering and difficult to reduce to writing. It would even be harder to reduce to writing for every community. Communities are like all other human relationship. Each one is a little bit difference, and, in human terms, the little differences can mean a lot. Now, with Jakarta, there seems to be a belief that we should be following a deterministic process with definitive procedures. Elsewhere in ASF land, there's a feeling that if you need to call upon a formal procedure (say, by exercising a veto), then consensus has failed. When this happens, many Apaches might feel that the real problem isn't the technical issue underlying the veto, but the consensus issue underlying the *need* to veto. Procedure is a fail-safe. Achieving consensus through discussion is the nominal process. The Apaches on the board don't like to make dictates, since dictates defeat consensus. They are not our bosses as much as they are our colleagues. They want to us to sort this out for ourselves. Because, if we can't sort it out ourselves, then we're not building a community that can endure. Tough love. As for what we are suppose to be doing here, the board has already made two mandates. One in section 6.3 of the bylaws http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html and another by resolution http://tinyurl.com/3x6rs. The PMC is responsible for the active management of the Jakarta codebase. Part of good management is effective oversight http://tinyurl.com/2eyvg, which is to say solving little problems before they become big problems. We know oversight is failing because we've had to take some drastic measures over the years. One subproject could not resolve an issue, either through consensus or by following the voting process. As a result, a committer lost his write access. By Apache standards, having to do such a thing is a red-letter scandal. Consensus oversight failed. We've also had to temporarily restrict access to CVS modules because of unresolved IP issues. All the issues were resolvable and should have been resolved *proactively* rather than *reactively*. IP oversight failed. There is no doubt that the Jakarta subprojects are healthy. Every project has its hiccups, and Jakarta is no exception. But, we seem to lack a mechanism that allows issues of consensus and IP to come to to forefront *before* it is too late. The infrastructure club is our final fail-save, employed as a last, desperate measure. Denying access to resources is a black-mark that screams oversight has failed. It's not an oh well that we can sweep under the rug and forget about. Other ASF projects have fewer lines of code to worry about, and most, or all, of the committers are on the PMC. If a committer/member has a problem, he or she can bring it up directly on the PMC list, without having to find an intermediary or post a sensitive observation on a public list. IMHO, we need to put aside the maverick guidelines posted at Jakarta and just try to do things the ASF Way. * We need to put *all* the decision-markers on the PMC. At Jakarta, that means *all* the committers, and * We need to insist that all subprojects file regular reports, with some statutory bullets to ensure everyone is still thinking about consensus and oversight. If anyone reading this message agrees
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
On Dec 28, 2003, at 8:43 AM, Ted Husted wrote: * We need to put *all* the decision-markers on the PMC. At Jakarta, that means *all* the committers, and No, it doesn't. We need to put as many as possible, hopefully all, but it's not required to be all. We can also have people that aren't committers on the PMC. * We need to insist that all subprojects file regular reports, with some statutory bullets to ensure everyone is still thinking about consensus and oversight. Erm, I'm not so sure that this needs to be legislated like this. If anyone reading this message agrees, or disagrees, please respond to the As it ever were proposal under another thread. Let's see if we can build a consensus and then create and maintain a solution that works. IMHO, the ASF Way *will* work if we let it; we've just never tried to let it. I don't think that anyone is debating if the ASF works. I think we all know it does. I think we disagree what the ASF Way is - I think it simply requires inclusive participation on the PMC of those willing to feel responsible for more than just the code they are working on, namely project direction and oversight. Thus, the PMC does not necessarily mean forced 100% committer participation, although that percentage is the goal, nor does it mandate strict reporting schedules and reporting content and format. I do believe that if we continue on the way already started - ensuring CLAs, putting as many active Jakarta committers on the PMC as are interested, educating them as to their oversight role, then we would be in a much healthier position and able to then grapple with the day-to-day PMC process. Until we achieve the former, the latter is somewhat of a intellectual game. As you like to point out, we all are adults working for the best interest of the organization. Please work with us on this. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
On Dec 28, 2003, at 8:43 AM, Ted Husted wrote: * We need to put *all* the decision-markers on the PMC. At Jakarta, that means *all* the committers, and No, it doesn't. We need to put as many as possible, hopefully all, but it's not required to be all. We can also have people that aren't committers on the PMC. * We need to insist that all subprojects file regular reports, with some statutory bullets to ensure everyone is still thinking about consensus and oversight. Erm, I'm not so sure that this needs to be legislated like this. If anyone reading this message agrees, or disagrees, please respond to the As it ever were proposal under another thread. Let's see if we can build a consensus and then create and maintain a solution that works. IMHO, the ASF Way *will* work if we let it; we've just never tried to let it. I don't think that anyone is debating if the ASF works. I think we all know it does. I think we disagree what the ASF Way is - I think it simply requires inclusive participation on the PMC of those willing to feel responsible for more than just the code they are working on, namely project direction and oversight. Thus, the PMC does not necessarily mean forced 100% committer participation, although that percentage is the goal, nor does it mandate strict reporting schedules and reporting content and format. I do believe that if we continue on the way already started - ensuring CLAs, putting as many active Jakarta committers on the PMC as are interested, educating them as to their oversight role, then we would be in a much healthier position and able to then grapple with the day-to-day PMC process. Until we achieve the former, the latter is somewhat of a intellectual game. As you like to point out, we all are adults working for the best interest of the organization. Please work with us on this. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
Is it my mailer that's making a mess here, or is something else going on? This is the second message I've seen today that is attributed to Ted but was written by someone else (in this case me, in the previous case Stephen) geir On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Ted Husted wrote: On Dec 28, 2003, at 8:43 AM, Ted Husted wrote: * We need to put *all* the decision-markers on the PMC. At Jakarta, that means *all* the committers, and No, it doesn't. We need to put as many as possible, hopefully all, but it's not required to be all. We can also have people that aren't committers on the PMC. * We need to insist that all subprojects file regular reports, with some statutory bullets to ensure everyone is still thinking about consensus and oversight. Erm, I'm not so sure that this needs to be legislated like this. If anyone reading this message agrees, or disagrees, please respond to the As it ever were proposal under another thread. Let's see if we can build a consensus and then create and maintain a solution that works. IMHO, the ASF Way *will* work if we let it; we've just never tried to let it. I don't think that anyone is debating if the ASF works. I think we all know it does. I think we disagree what the ASF Way is - I think it simply requires inclusive participation on the PMC of those willing to feel responsible for more than just the code they are working on, namely project direction and oversight. Thus, the PMC does not necessarily mean forced 100% committer participation, although that percentage is the goal, nor does it mandate strict reporting schedules and reporting content and format. I do believe that if we continue on the way already started - ensuring CLAs, putting as many active Jakarta committers on the PMC as are interested, educating them as to their oversight role, then we would be in a much healthier position and able to then grapple with the day-to-day PMC process. Until we achieve the former, the latter is somewhat of a intellectual game. As you like to point out, we all are adults working for the best interest of the organization. Please work with us on this. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Indemnification of the PMC
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Is it my mailer that's making a mess here, or is something else going on? This is the second message I've seen today that is attributed to Ted but was written by someone else (in this case me, in the previous case Stephen) The two messages from Ted Husted that concern you contain: Received: from PC15 (roc-24-93-14-71.rochester.rr.com [24.93.14.71]) which appears to match other messages from Ted. My guess is that Ted started to compose a reply and accidentally sent it before doing any edits. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Is it my mailer that's making a mess here, or is something else going on? This is the second message I've seen today that is attributed to Ted but was written by someone else (in this case me, in the previous case Stephen) The two messages from Ted Husted that concern you contain: Received: from PC15 (roc-24-93-14-71.rochester.rr.com [24.93.14.71]) which appears to match other messages from Ted. My guess is that Ted started to compose a reply and accidentally sent it before doing any edits. I think the confusing message (for me at least) was at 11:17 a.m. EST with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] It appears from Ted Husted, but it is a replying and criticizing text apparently from Ted Husted. The text even says, Ted, you seem to be.. which is very confusing if the message was *from* Ted. Maybe Ted is playing Devil's advocate with himself? -- Serge Knystautas Lokitech software . strategy . design http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
Mea culpa. I'm trying a new mail client and managed to press the wrong buttons. Sorry for the confusion. -Ted. - Original message From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:19:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Indemnification of the PMC Is it my mailer that's making a mess here, or is something else going on? This is the second message I've seen today that is attributed to Ted but was written by someone else (in this case me, in the previous case Stephen) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
No worries. I was just truly baffled. geir On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:59 AM, Ted Husted wrote: Mea culpa. I'm trying a new mail client and managed to press the wrong buttons. Sorry for the confusion. -Ted. - Original message From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:19:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Indemnification of the PMC Is it my mailer that's making a mess here, or is something else going on? This is the second message I've seen today that is attributed to Ted but was written by someone else (in this case me, in the previous case Stephen) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: If I understand correctly, the opinions of an individual are not the same as a motion passed by the BOD. Correct. In fact, my understanding is that the role of PMC implies no rights at all - just extra responsibility. Is there anything concrete to suggest otherwise? Did you read the two messages, one from Roy, the other from Greg in his official capacity as ASF Chairman? If not, please do so. Yes I have read the posts from Roy and Greg. If so, and you still have some questions that you feel you must have answered, perhaps it would be best for you to addressed them directly with the Board. I don't believe that it would be appropriate for anyone else to pose an authoritative sounding answer. I think I disagee - let me explain why. Based on my reading of Board minutes and the corporation documents there is identification of the notion of ASF officers and member and protection that the ASF provides to individuals within these roles. However, a PMC member may not necessarily be an ASF member. In this particular case the PMC member, while recognized by the Board as contributing to project oversite, is IMO not formally granted any protection by the ASF beyond actions clearly bound to a board directive. While I know that Greg has specifically stated that PMC members shall be granted protection by the ASF, there is Roy's qualified who is or was serving at the request of ... statement, and as such - I think that we dealing with a definition that is rather subjective. For example, am I in writing this email, acting in the capacity of a PMC member, a committer, or an individual? One could argue that no officer of the foundation has requested that I raise this question therefore I am not acting in accordance with Roy's definition. On the otherhand I could be asking this question in order to clarify this question in order to properly represent the interests of the developers in the Avalon community in which case I could argue that I am asking this question in my capacity as a member of the Avalon PMC (protected under Greg's comments and possibly protected subject to the opinion of an officer of the corporation under Roy's definition). But what if an officer of the corporation disagrees with my question - do I loose the protection that is asserted? I think this comes down to the fact that the general definition of a PMC member in terms of responsibilities (and thereby liabilities and commensurate need for protection) at the level of PMC establishment by the Board are minimal - but sufficient to enable a PMC as a body to qualify these aspects - and through this process (involving the establishment of policies and procedures) - establish tangible and quantifiable protection towards its members in a manner that is representative of the resonsibilities (and corresponding liabilities) that PMC membership encompasses. Stephen. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/ | || - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
- Original message From: Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:48:59 +0100 Subject: Re: Indemnification of the PMC If I understand correctly, the opinions of an individual are not the same as a motion passed by the BOD. It is my understanding the BOD has not passed any resolution that grants a PMC member any of the rights implied by the message quoted below. In fact, my understanding is that the role of PMC implies no rights at all - just extra responsibility. Is there anything concrete to suggest otherwise? The ASF's authority to indemnify individuals stems from Section 12.1 of the ASF bylaws: http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html This section provides for indemnification of directors, officers, and members, as well as individuals serving at the request of the corporation The theory is that the PMC Committee members fall under the latter clause. Since, the corporate resolution only installs the PMC (the argument goes), plain-vanilla committers don't fall under section 12.3, since they don't serve at the request of the corporation. Though, section 12.1 does not specify PMC members as such, and so there's some wriggle room there. From a legal standpoint, the safest thing is to be an ASF Member *and* serve on the relevant PMC. (Something more of us ASF Members need to do this year is nominate more Jakarta-bred committers to the ASF.) For those of you with access to the ASF Members list, there's a good post by Roy dated 12-Mar-2003 that sums up the indemnification issues as well as the issues surrounding the role of the PMC. According to the ASF Bylaws and the Jakarta resolution, http://tinyurl.com/3x6rs being on the PMC doesn't grant additional responsibility, it grants *all* the responsibility. While, in practice, the lowly Jakarta committers now handle the active, day-to-day management of the codebase, it is not their responsibility to do so. Personally, I think that this perception that being on the PMC means more work than being a committer is a nonsense. Elsewhere, most or all of the committers are PMC members. Elsewhere, committers who are not a PMC members are the exception rather than the rule. The reason being on the PMC here may seem like more work, is because we are *making* it more work than it should be. Within Jakarta, we've gotten the fallacious idea that the PMC is a steering committee that sets the strategic direction for the project. This idea is not based on the ASF bylaws or the Jakarta resolution. The guidelines altered the role of the PMC years ago, either as a misunderstanding or as an experiment. The bylaws specifically say that the chairman shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management, which is what our committee spends a lot of time trying to do. As for what the PMC is supposed to be doing, the bylaws state that Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active management of one or more projects. Within Jakarta, we've trying to fill the chairman role with a committee and let the committers take responsibility for the active management of our codebase. (Recently subject to the PMC's rubber stamp.) IMHO, this is why there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between Jakarta and the rest of the ASF. We've reduced the chair to a notetaker, given the PMC the chair's responsibilities, and given the committers the PMC's responsibilities. Jakarta folks and the ASF board folks on not on the same page, and we talk past each other. Here's how Roy Feilding styles the roles: project= something the ASF wants to accomplish, management = making decisions for progress toward a goal, and committee = the people voting on decisions Roy also stated that: The PMC must equal the voters on a given project, or the entire theory of delegated authority, responsibility, and oversight upon which the ASF depends for legal defense of its contributors [is defeated]. The PMCs were based on the Apache Core Group. The PMC is *not* suppose to be some other-worldly land where benevolent beings ponder deep issues and create solutions. The PMC is them that make the real, day-to-day decisions that foster the project's community and create and maintain the project's codebase. At Jakarta, that would be the committers -- ALL the committers. It's possible we might also want to create some type of executive steering committee within Jakarta that could do the sort of stuff the current PMC seems to want to do. But, we cannot usurp the PMC constituted by the ASF for some other role. We must make the PMC what the PMC is intended to be: The committers who make the day-to-day decisions. If we did want to get back to basics, we should start by going back to the HTTPD guidelines, http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html and make the minimum number of changes needed
RE: Indemnification of the PMC
Stephen wrote, For example, am I in writing this email, acting in the capacity of a PMC member, a committer, or an individual? Seems to me that part of the reason it is difficult to resolve the issues confronting Jakarta is that several initial assumptions are required, and that these are not stated or clearly implied anywhere. Greg assures us that the board aren't likely to act precipitately (if thats how you spell it), and we haven't had official communications from The Members of The Board on the topic, yet there are a lot of hints about the unsuitability of Jakarta's present organisation. I think we could do with some concrete direction, or at least an affirmation of our mandate to continue what we are currently doing. Because to me it is increasingly feeling like we're trying to fix something which (apart from a few details like the bylaws) isn't broken on the basis of speculation and conjecture, and the danger in that is obvious, we'll end up breaking the thing we're trying to fix, or failing to fix the parts which are broken. And with the utmost respect for Sam hopefully that is something a new Chairman, with more time and fresh enthusiasm for the role, will be able to provide. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
Geir : If I understand correctly, the opinions of an individual are not the same as a motion passed by the BOD. It is my understanding the BOD has not passed any resolution that grants a PMC member any of the rights implied by the message quoted below. In fact, my understanding is that the role of PMC implies no rights at all - just extra responsibility. Is there anything concrete to suggest otherwise? Cheers, Stephen. Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Here is the clearest description I've found. It's by Roy Fielding, ex chair and board member of the ASF, and from all appearances, extremely knowledgeable in these matters. It was posted here : http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? [EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=2642 Indemnification is a promise by the corporation to pay the legal expenses of an *individual* if that *individual* becomes subject to criminal or civil proceedings as a result of their actions under a role identified by the corporation, as long as such person acted in good faith and in a manner that such person reasonably believed to be in, or not be opposed to, the best interests of the corporation. In other words, a member is only indemnified for their actions as a member (not much). A director or officer is only indemnified for their actions as a director or within the scope of their mandate as an officer. A PMC member is indemnified under the category of who is or was serving at the request of the corporation as an officer or director of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise and only to the extent of that enterprise (the project). A committer who is not a PMC member is not authorized by the corporation to make decisions, and hence cannot act on behalf of the corporation, and thus is not indemnified by the corporation for those actions regardless of their status as a member, director, or officer. Likewise, we should all realize and understand that the ASF's ability to indemnify an individual is strictly limited to the assets held by the ASF. Beyond that, we are on our own as far as personal liability. It is a far better defense that an outside entity cannot successfully sue an individual for damages due to a decision made by a PMC, so it is in everyone's best interests that all of the people voting on an issue be officially named as members of the PMC (or whatever entity is so defined by the bylaws). So in summary, a PMC member is indemnified for activities done on behalf of the corporation. I think that this would be limited to the official activities of the PMC - things done on behalf of the board for the ASF, such as oversight and releases - and not general day-to-day committer activities, such as technical discussion and personal code commits. Of course, that will probably need to be clarified too. However, the key thing to remember is that the indemnification is only up to the limit of the ASFs resources, which isn't much. So try to keep the litigation to a minimum :) geir -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/ | || - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Indemnification of the PMC
Stephen McConnell wrote: If I understand correctly, the opinions of an individual are not the same as a motion passed by the BOD. Correct. In fact, my understanding is that the role of PMC implies no rights at all - just extra responsibility. Is there anything concrete to suggest otherwise? Did you read the two messages, one from Roy, the other from Greg in his official capacity as ASF Chairman? If not, please do so. If so, and you still have some questions that you feel you must have answered, perhaps it would be best for you to addressed them directly with the Board. I don't believe that it would be appropriate for anyone else to pose an authoritative sounding answer. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
Oh, and thanks to Noel for the links... On Dec 23, 2003, at 6:49 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Here is the clearest description I've found. It's by Roy Fielding, ex chair and board member of the ASF, and from all appearances, extremely knowledgeable in these matters. It was posted here : http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? [EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=2642 Indemnification is a promise by the corporation to pay the legal expenses of an *individual* if that *individual* becomes subject to criminal or civil proceedings as a result of their actions under a role identified by the corporation, as long as such person acted in good faith and in a manner that such person reasonably believed to be in, or not be opposed to, the best interests of the corporation. In other words, a member is only indemnified for their actions as a member (not much). A director or officer is only indemnified for their actions as a director or within the scope of their mandate as an officer. A PMC member is indemnified under the category of who is or was serving at the request of the corporation as an officer or director of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise and only to the extent of that enterprise (the project). A committer who is not a PMC member is not authorized by the corporation to make decisions, and hence cannot act on behalf of the corporation, and thus is not indemnified by the corporation for those actions regardless of their status as a member, director, or officer. Likewise, we should all realize and understand that the ASF's ability to indemnify an individual is strictly limited to the assets held by the ASF. Beyond that, we are on our own as far as personal liability. It is a far better defense that an outside entity cannot successfully sue an individual for damages due to a decision made by a PMC, so it is in everyone's best interests that all of the people voting on an issue be officially named as members of the PMC (or whatever entity is so defined by the bylaws). So in summary, a PMC member is indemnified for activities done on behalf of the corporation. I think that this would be limited to the official activities of the PMC - things done on behalf of the board for the ASF, such as oversight and releases - and not general day-to-day committer activities, such as technical discussion and personal code commits. Of course, that will probably need to be clarified too. However, the key thing to remember is that the indemnification is only up to the limit of the ASFs resources, which isn't much. So try to keep the litigation to a minimum :) geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
