On Apr 14, 2007, at 3:45 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Please take my comments as trying to really understand your concerns.
sure thing! Do note they're not really *my* concerns, they're ASF
concerns explained as far as I understand them. Please do note that
I'm not quite an expert on any of this (I just paraphrase what has
been explained to me by people that are), so I'm probably getting a
detail or two wrong here. Anyway...
On Apr 12, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
There's just this one little tidbit - if the IPMC votes to
*release* something, that something should then actually be
released. "Release" has a specific meaning and we (have to) do
"distribution at no charge to the general public" of them. I guess
it's all in a name.
I guess I don't quite understand the issue you are raising. If the
IPMC votes to release something, then it goes back to the podling
PPMC to make it happen. I don't see the IPMC as actually
"releasing" anything. All it does is to approve a podling release,
and then it's up to the podling to take the next step.
I understand your interpretation, but I'm afraid it's simply not how
we need to think about these things. Releasing software is done
officiallly, on behalf of the ASF (which is a good thing because the
ASF is then responsible, and liable, for the release, not an
individual release manager). The only ways to do things officially on
behalf of the ASF are
(1) an Officer of the foundation does it
(2) a board member of the foundation does it
(3) a Committee that was specifically delegated to do
specific things in accordance with the foundation
bylaws does the specific thing that was delegated
to it
A PPMC is not a 'real' committee set up by the board, so it cannot
act on behalf of the ASF. Because of this, whenever "acting on behalf
of the ASF" must be done for an incubating project, the IPMC has to
do the acting.
In this terminology, the "acting" is embodied in the release vote.
Actually creating and moving the files around is something more like
"administrative grunt work" if you will.
If the podling discovers something else that's wrong, or for some
other reason decides not to release, are you suggesting that
somehow the IPMC is going to go and release it anyway?
Given the above, for all intents and purposes, after a release vote
has concluded, the thing that was voted on has been released.
An in-progress vote can be cancelled.
After a vote has concluded, a release can still be "pulled". And we
don't seem to vote on pulling a release, it is just administrative
action.
The alternative is to *not* release something, and then there
should not be a release vote, but a different kind of vote, or no
vote at all.
Well, I guess I don't see this the same way. I understand that the
IPMC doesn't want to waste its valuable (!) time reviewing stuff
that has no intrinsic value, but if a podling is at the point of
wanting to make sure it knows how to release, and has all the
necessary IP clearance, copyright notices, readme, and disclaimers,
why not have a release vote?
Because a release vote is an official part of the ASF processes that
is as official as it is for specific reasons, it serves a specific
purpose, and should serve only that purpose.
Doing things this way is part of the "legal umbrella" that the ASF
provides its projects, and the strength of that umbrella depends (I
think) in part on everyone following the same basic steps.
hope this helps,
- Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
