ในวันที่ ศ. 21 มิ.ย. 2019 23:22 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> เขียนว่า:
> It all makes sense to me. I think there are two key points that are > driving all of this discussion: > > "5. Disclaimers generally don't remove liability" > > IANAL so I don't know if that's true or not. For sure there are lots of > disclaimers in the world. I do not know the history of the current > DISCLAIMER (and labeling of releases with -incubating). What was the > DISCLAIMERs original purpose? Should it be modified to cover > less-than-perfect podling releases, especially around CatX inclusions? Who > gets to make that call? > > " It's not perfect compliance vs. failure. > IMO, the IPMC has been delegated the decision making process, and may > often find themselves making the business decision that an imperfect > release is better than a community stalled for months or years. Don't > let the perfect be the enemy of the good." > > I think several "prominent" ASF members are saying this same thing, but > nobody really wants to make it official. The responsibility seems to have > been passed around between IPMC, Board, and VP Legal. How can the ASF get > closure on this topic? > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 6/20/19, 10:04 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > There's been a lot of discussion in various threads about bureaucracy, > whether podlings are part of the ASF, etc. As a result of that I've > spent a good deal of time reading resolutions and older discussions > and organizing those thoughts from a legal and community perspective. > I've also read a number of conversations from the more august members > of our body about this subject. Altogether it has somewhat changed > some of my opinions and assumptions. I've also sensed that there is a > community/business/legal disconnect in our conversations. We're using > the same words to mean very different things in each of those > contexts. That said I am but one member of the IPMC, but maybe this > will be helpful to someone else - I've tried to avoid my assumptions > in this. > > The IPMC's first 'job'[1] is "accepting new products into the > Foundation" The second 'job' of the IPMC is to "provide guidance and > support to ensure that the Incubator's sub-projects[2] develop > products according to the Foundation's philosophy and guidelines". The > final 'job' is evaluating the products and determining whether they > should be abandoned, continue to receive guidance and support, or be > promoted to "full project status". > > So there are several realizations I gained from this from the > Incubator perspective. > 1. Acceptance into the Incubator is acceptance of the product into the > Foundation. > 2. That product is then a sub-project of the Incubator. > 3. The IPMC has the "primary responsibility for the management of > those subprojects". > > From the Foundation's perspective there are a number of things that > come to mind: > 1. We aren't a github/sourceforge/google code type platform where > random people can upload/post what they want. > 2. We do not have DMCA Safe Harbor protection - e.g. we are > responsible for everything that we publish or distribute. With the > exception of wikis and bug trackers anyone who can put something up on > an Apache property has some form of legal relationship with the > Foundation. This could be as simple as an ICLAs where you've > contractually said you won't contribute anything you don't have rights > to. > 3. Most of the project's who have come to us aren't entities in and of > themselves. E.g. the 'project' doesn't truly exist from a legal entity > perspective - and even those who do are at best an unincorporated > association of individuals. From a legal perspective - projects can't > make or distribute a release - they don't exist - only the ASF and the > individual(s) doing the work. Given that one of the explicit reasons > the Foundation was created was to[5]: "provide a means for individual > volunteers to be sheltered from legal suits"; we want them to create > and distribute releases as the Foundation. > 4. Whether we like it or not - the Foundation is judged on the output > from our projects and subprojects. We have a reputation of having > clean IP, permissively licensed open source code, with clear > provenance. Many people explicitly copy our standards, guidelines, and > policies because they are the gold standard for good open source > governance. > 5. Disclaimers generally don't remove liability, and even if they did, > our disclaimer talks about the maturity of our projects. - And it > certainly doesn't remove the public's expectations from us - frankly - > losing the publics trust is as scary as the potential legal liability. > 6. The Board has delegated the responsibility of managing and ensuring > adherence to policies and guidelines to the IPMC. I don't see this > responsibility as boolean. It's not perfect compliance vs. failure. > IMO, the IPMC has been delegated the decision making process, and may > often find themselves making the business decision that an imperfect > release is better than a community stalled for months or years. Don't > let the perfect be the enemy of the good. > > From a podling's perspective: > 1. Once you join the incubator you're a part of the ASF (Yay!?) > 2. Your project is now a subproject of the IPMC. > 3. There are rules, and you're entering a world of pain[4] In fact, > you're likely to find that the ASF has more rules and structure that > apply to projects than virtually any other home your project could > choose. This is good and bad. > 4. The incubator has a long, storied history of producing successful > projects that flourish. > > > [1] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache.org%2Ffoundation%2Frecords%2Fminutes%2F2002%2Fboard_minutes_2002_10_16.txt&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf7c5e39c364b4bf8fff008d6f5a159f7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636966470679352679&sdata=ohGIgOepkDRYbh%2Fd69YFASb%2BHe0BHOfHeWD1ArH1kn8%3D&reserved=0 > [2] What we call Podlings, the initial resolution refers to as > subprojects of the Incubator > [3] It's worth noting that there were two resolutions proposed to > create the Incubator - small differences, but interesting to read the > differences. > [4] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F3vB9U2hx6Qg&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf7c5e39c364b4bf8fff008d6f5a159f7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636966470679352679&sdata=qg%2FxPScn07i1mnnurxsS1d9TZW2myxfAJBWV4U3kj8U%3D&reserved=0 > [5] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Ffoundation%2Ffaq.html%23why&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf7c5e39c364b4bf8fff008d6f5a159f7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636966470679352679&sdata=SbrEmxffhCoR5QXD3hpqXIcXMBs8I8tEoDsRrJSxqWY%3D&reserved=0 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > >
