You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> on 2019/07/01 05:45:00 UTC
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
FWIW, I reconcile it as:
Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call something an ASF release in order to place that release under the legal protection of the ASF. ASF releases may have policy non-compliance issues. No TLP can decide on its own to never comply with policy. But the business decision of the costs of delaying a release to correct non-compliance vs risks of distributing a release with any non-compliance is up to the TLP. VP Legal will assert a risk profile for any non-compliance and VP Legal or any ASF Member or PMC Member should try to stop a release if a TLP decides to distribute something highly risky. But it is up to any TLP. Including the IPMC. And so the Incubator can do whatever it wants within limits. Any of us should protest if the IPMC starts allowing releases with high risk. But with the disclaimer and -incubating suffixes, the risk of many non-compliance issues are low, even CatX and binary inclusions.
Whether the incubator needs to have a secondary vote is not required by the above. IPMC members could drop in on the podling vote thread. Podlings with 3 active mentors that vote on the podling's vote thread could be deemed sufficient.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 6/30/19, 12:11 PM, "Davor Bonaci" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
I do -not- have a problem where this is all tracking towards and believe it
is right, but I do have a problem with how it is justified and explained.
People say: "Incubator is a PMC/TLP", "Incubator takes on the resultant
legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release", "we can NOT allow
any relaxation of the ASF release policy for a TLP", and then conclude that
Incubator can do ~whatever it wants. This logic does not pass the
consistency test.
So... if you want that [new] people in the future don't trip on this, it is
*necessary* to break this logic somehow.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:31 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:59 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > > It appears there is general consensus that "right to distribute
> closed
> > source" would be the main and potentially only blocker for podlings.
> >
> > That is not the case (re this is a blocker) I suggest you read that legal
> > thread again. Also infra makes distribution policy.
> >
>
> *distribution*
>
> Infra does not care about the contents. If a PMC says "we +1 the contents",
> then Infra will not second-guess that. Leave out LICENSE, NOTICE, or do
> those files wrong. Include jars, Cat X source. Whatever. We aren't going to
> police that. Binaries in there? Knock yourself out. Legal might get on your
> case, but that's Not Our Problem(tm).
>
> If the IPMC says "here is a podling tarball that we will allow", then it
> can be put into distribution. Use whatever rules you want for the contents,
> or lack of rules. Infra just wants it placed into our distribution system
> in a specific way, to ensure correctness, auditing, and resilience.
>
> VP Infra has already stated the above. As an Officer of Infrastructure, I
> concur and reiterate that position.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Stein
> InfraAdmin, ASF
>
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
Hey Alex,
The Incubator plays a special role. We should be willing to take on some
risks in the process of helping newer, or older projects adjust to us. But
once those adjustments are complete, we should be able to expect TLP's to
"color in the lines".
If you believe that is impossible for your project for some reason, then
you may be trying to do something that just doesn't belong at Apache. Or
you may have found something about Apache that needs to change. Either
way, this isn't the right forum. Many others here have said it too: the
incubator is not the right place to be looking for an exception to the
rules for your favorite TLP. If you want answers to a concrete question,
please bring it to board@a.o, or, if you would prefer to ask in public,
consider dev@community.a.o.
Please don't be looking for ways to leverage decisions that are
special-made for the incubator to find loopholes for a TLP.
Best Regards,
Myrle
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:45 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> FWIW, I reconcile it as:
>
> Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call something
> an ASF release in order to place that release under the legal protection of
> the ASF. ASF releases may have policy non-compliance issues. No TLP can
> decide on its own to never comply with policy. But the business decision
> of the costs of delaying a release to correct non-compliance vs risks of
> distributing a release with any non-compliance is up to the TLP. VP Legal
> will assert a risk profile for any non-compliance and VP Legal or any ASF
> Member or PMC Member should try to stop a release if a TLP decides to
> distribute something highly risky. But it is up to any TLP. Including
> the IPMC. And so the Incubator can do whatever it wants within limits.
> Any of us should protest if the IPMC starts allowing releases with high
> risk. But with the disclaimer and -incubating suffixes, the risk of many
> non-compliance issues are low, even CatX and binary inclusions.
>
> Whether the incubator needs to have a secondary vote is not required by
> the above. IPMC members could drop in on the podling vote thread.
> Podlings with 3 active mentors that vote on the podling's vote thread could
> be deemed sufficient.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 6/30/19, 12:11 PM, "Davor Bonaci" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I do -not- have a problem where this is all tracking towards and
> believe it
> is right, but I do have a problem with how it is justified and
> explained.
>
> People say: "Incubator is a PMC/TLP", "Incubator takes on the resultant
> legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release", "we can NOT
> allow
> any relaxation of the ASF release policy for a TLP", and then conclude
> that
> Incubator can do ~whatever it wants. This logic does not pass the
> consistency test.
>
> So... if you want that [new] people in the future don't trip on this,
> it is
> *necessary* to break this logic somehow.
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:31 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:59 PM Justin Mclean <
> justin@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> > >...
> >
> > > > It appears there is general consensus that "right to distribute
> > closed
> > > source" would be the main and potentially only blocker for
> podlings.
> > >
> > > That is not the case (re this is a blocker) I suggest you read
> that legal
> > > thread again. Also infra makes distribution policy.
> > >
> >
> > *distribution*
> >
> > Infra does not care about the contents. If a PMC says "we +1 the
> contents",
> > then Infra will not second-guess that. Leave out LICENSE, NOTICE, or
> do
> > those files wrong. Include jars, Cat X source. Whatever. We aren't
> going to
> > police that. Binaries in there? Knock yourself out. Legal might get
> on your
> > case, but that's Not Our Problem(tm).
> >
> > If the IPMC says "here is a podling tarball that we will allow",
> then it
> > can be put into distribution. Use whatever rules you want for the
> contents,
> > or lack of rules. Infra just wants it placed into our distribution
> system
> > in a specific way, to ensure correctness, auditing, and resilience.
> >
> > VP Infra has already stated the above. As an Officer of
> Infrastructure, I
> > concur and reiterate that position.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg Stein
> > InfraAdmin, ASF
> >
>
>
>
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
David Nalley wrote on Wed, 03 Jul 2019 16:21 -0400:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:38 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:27 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >...
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for
> > > > each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal
> > > > considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a
> > >
> > >
> > > Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is
> > > there for.
> >
> > That's exactly the direction I personally would like this to go into.
> >
>
> As VP Legal, I think that's well within your bailiwick to make such a decision.
> As a member, I find that it's counter to one of the stated purposes of
> the Foundation - which is to shield individuals[1] and find it
> concerning that we are wanting to shift that back to the individual.
2017 - Project Foo is a non-Apache project
2018 - Project Foo has joined the Incubator
2019 - Project Foo graduated to PMC
Releases in 2017 are not Apache releases. Releases in 2019 are Apache
releases. Starting from some point in 2018 the Foo podling releases
should enter the legal shield — but that point needn't coincide with the
start of Incubation. Thus, instead of expecting that *every* release
made while in Incubation be an Apache release, expect that *eventually*
every release will be an Apache release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:38 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:27 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> > >...
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for
> > > each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal
> > > considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a
> >
> >
> > Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is
> > there for.
>
> That's exactly the direction I personally would like this to go into.
>
As VP Legal, I think that's well within your bailiwick to make such a decision.
As a member, I find that it's counter to one of the stated purposes of
the Foundation - which is to shield individuals[1] and find it
concerning that we are wanting to shift that back to the individual.
> > > Which while I don’t disagree with, again I ask how can a PMC (i.e the
> > > incubator) make releases that are not in line with policy? Current advice
> > > seems that the board would not grant a blanket exception like to the IPMC
> >
> >
> > I don't recall that advice. In fact, Roman seemed to indicate Legal would
> > be just fine with that.
>
> This is correct. Provided we *do* explicitly acknowledge that special
> status of the Incubator.
>
> This acknowledgement will basically put podling source code releases
> at the same level we have convenience binary releases. Which is: they
> are NOT acts of the foundation.
>
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think that argument holds water. We
celebrate downloads of binaries with press releases, we adorn binaries
with cryptographic signatures that identify the content as originating
from us, we've entered into contractual agreements with vendors to
explicitly distribute binaries on our behalf. Download of binaries
from us, our mirrors, and our vendors dwarfs all of the other traffic
to our web properties by a huge margin. As a result a substantial
function of our operations - e.g. what the ASF actually spends money
is facilitating the download of binaries. By taking these actions, or
perhaps by not policing the fact that these actions have been taken,
we are essentially telling the world its something we've done, and not
something an individual has done.
I can't imagine a court saying that the binary of Apache Foo which is:
*uploaded by a member of the Foo PMC, a position granted to him by the
consent of the board of directors of the Foundation,
*signed by the official Foundation code signing keys,
* placed on the Apache.org web properties,
* linked to from foo.apache.org,
* announced in an official Apache press release,
* and with an Apache press release highlighting that we have eclipsed
5 million downloads of those same binaries
is the work of an individual and not the calculated effort of the
Foundation. That just doesn't pass the smell test.
--David
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#why
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 2:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the foundation when they do a release
>>>
>>> Let's be pedantic and define those in this particular case, shall we?
>>> What exactly are the expectations for PPMC members?
>>
>> Do you mean what does the ASF expect from PPMC members (ie: "What will the PPMC members do for the ASF")? Or do you mean what do PPMC members expect by the ASF ("What will the ASF do for PPMC members")?
>
> No. The other way around. What are the expectation of protections that
> a legal shield is offering to PPMC *today*.
>
> IOW, what do folks expect ASF to provide.
That’s the incentive for the PPMC Members and Release Manager to have a release with no issues to Disclaim. As Daniel write elsethread it is that point during Incubation that goal was met.
Best,
Dave
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> No. The other way around. What are the expectation of protections that
> a legal shield is offering to PPMC *today*.
>
> IOW, what do folks expect ASF to provide.
Given the IPMC makes the release, isn’t the question more what protection does it give the IPMC? (And those people with binding +1 votes?). My expectation is that they would be covered by the legal shield.
Does that change if we consider those releases to not be acts of the foundation?
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the foundation when they do a release
> >
> > Let's be pedantic and define those in this particular case, shall we?
> > What exactly are the expectations for PPMC members?
>
> Do you mean what does the ASF expect from PPMC members (ie: "What will the PPMC members do for the ASF")? Or do you mean what do PPMC members expect by the ASF ("What will the ASF do for PPMC members")?
No. The other way around. What are the expectation of protections that
a legal shield is offering to PPMC *today*.
IOW, what do folks expect ASF to provide.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the foundation when they do a release
>
> Let's be pedantic and define those in this particular case, shall we?
> What exactly are the expectations for PPMC members?
Do you mean what does the ASF expect from PPMC members (ie: "What will the PPMC members do for the ASF")? Or do you mean what do PPMC members expect by the ASF ("What will the ASF do for PPMC members")?
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:59 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is correct. Provided we *do* explicitly acknowledge that special
> > status of the Incubator.
> >
> > This acknowledgement will basically put podling source code releases
> > at the same level we have convenience binary releases. Which is: they
> > are NOT acts of the foundation.
> >
>
> IMO, we want 2 things:
>
> 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the foundation when they do a release
Let's be pedantic and define those in this particular case, shall we?
What exactly are the expectations for PPMC members?
> 2. The outside world, and esp downstream end-users, to know that podling releases should be expected to not be fully compliant with the normal expectations associated w/ PMC releases.
>
> #1 requires them to be acts of the foundation; #2 requires easily visible and discoverable disclaimers.
>
> Anything else just seems excessive and somewhat unwarranted, I think. Let's make it as easy as possible, and as painless as possible, for podlings to learn; Heck, at the start of The Apache Group and the ASF, we didn't do everything right; we tried some things and some failed. It's in the nature of education and mentoring. Making mistakes is not a problem; not learning from them is.
>
> After we resolve this, I *really* would like to switch the convo around to a discussion as deep, and as involved, but related to the other (IMO, more important) side of the Incubator coin: education in the Apache Way. So much derives from that... even the legal considerations of releases ultimately can be found there, IMO. And I still maintain that we do a Not-So-Good job here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Jim Jagielski wrote on Wed, 03 Jul 2019 16:59 -0400:
> IMO, we want 2 things:
>
> 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the
> foundation when they do a release
>
> 2. The outside world, and esp downstream end-users, to know that
> podling releases should be expected to not be fully compliant with the
> normal expectations associated w/ PMC releases.
Re #2, I'd be concerned about two kinds of fallout:
A. Podling Foo releases non-compliant artifact. Downstream users apply the same expectations to Podling Bar.
B. Podling Foo releases non-compliant artifact. Downstream users apply the same expectations to PMC Baz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> After we resolve this, I *really* would like to switch the convo around to a discussion as deep, and as involved, but related to the other (IMO, more important) side of the Incubator coin: education in the Apache Way. So much derives from that... even the legal considerations of releases ultimately can be found there, IMO. And I still maintain that we do a Not-So-Good job here.
+1000 I expect this to a be a difficult conversation as well (as it has been in the past). Some of this is because there are many different interpretations of the Apache Way and that who know it well may not be the best teachers. I mean no offence by that statement but say it because that knowledge is instinctual / unconscious and that makes it hard to explain and pass on, experts in any given field are not always the best teachers. hopefully we have exceptions here.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:59 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is correct. Provided we *do* explicitly acknowledge that special
> > status of the Incubator.
> >
> > This acknowledgement will basically put podling source code releases
> > at the same level we have convenience binary releases. Which is: they
> > are NOT acts of the foundation.
> >
>
> IMO, we want 2 things:
>
> 1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the foundation when they do a release
>
> 2. The outside world, and esp downstream end-users, to know that podling releases should be expected to not be fully compliant with the normal expectations associated w/ PMC releases.
>
> #1 requires them to be acts of the foundation; #2 requires easily visible and discoverable disclaimers.
>
> Anything else just seems excessive and somewhat unwarranted, I think. Let's make it as easy as possible, and as painless as possible, for podlings to learn; Heck, at the start of The Apache Group and the ASF, we didn't do everything right; we tried some things and some failed. It's in the nature of education and mentoring. Making mistakes is not a problem; not learning from them is.
>
> After we resolve this, I *really* would like to switch the convo around to a discussion as deep, and as involved, but related to the other (IMO, more important) side of the Incubator coin: education in the Apache Way. So much derives from that... even the legal considerations of releases ultimately can be found there, IMO. And I still maintain that we do a Not-So-Good job here.
Well said Jim.
Mistakes are inevitable as long as humans are involved. Regardless of
the process we apply we aren't going to solve that. The incubator can
make 'business' decisions around that risk. However, our legal process
is only side of the coin, and while it's important - we should care
much more about perpetuating and communicating our culture vis-a-vis
the Apache Way.
--David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
>
> This is correct. Provided we *do* explicitly acknowledge that special
> status of the Incubator.
>
> This acknowledgement will basically put podling source code releases
> at the same level we have convenience binary releases. Which is: they
> are NOT acts of the foundation.
>
IMO, we want 2 things:
1. Podlings, and PPMC members, to enjoy the legal protection of the foundation when they do a release
2. The outside world, and esp downstream end-users, to know that podling releases should be expected to not be fully compliant with the normal expectations associated w/ PMC releases.
#1 requires them to be acts of the foundation; #2 requires easily visible and discoverable disclaimers.
Anything else just seems excessive and somewhat unwarranted, I think. Let's make it as easy as possible, and as painless as possible, for podlings to learn; Heck, at the start of The Apache Group and the ASF, we didn't do everything right; we tried some things and some failed. It's in the nature of education and mentoring. Making mistakes is not a problem; not learning from them is.
After we resolve this, I *really* would like to switch the convo around to a discussion as deep, and as involved, but related to the other (IMO, more important) side of the Incubator coin: education in the Apache Way. So much derives from that... even the legal considerations of releases ultimately can be found there, IMO. And I still maintain that we do a Not-So-Good job here.
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:27 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for
> > each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal
> > considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a
>
>
> Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is
> there for.
That's exactly the direction I personally would like this to go into.
> > Which while I don’t disagree with, again I ask how can a PMC (i.e the
> > incubator) make releases that are not in line with policy? Current advice
> > seems that the board would not grant a blanket exception like to the IPMC
>
>
> I don't recall that advice. In fact, Roman seemed to indicate Legal would
> be just fine with that.
This is correct. Provided we *do* explicitly acknowledge that special
status of the Incubator.
This acknowledgement will basically put podling source code releases
at the same level we have convenience binary releases. Which is: they
are NOT acts of the foundation.
> IMO, stop being pessimistic. Move forward with change to stop the gating,
> and let podlings do their releases without all the IPMC burden.
>
> >...
>
> > > Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to
> > provide legal oversight
> >
> > That may be the original thought, but historical threads bring up legal
> > oversight very very early on. (I posted one from 2004 the other day).
> > Hopefully someone can explain this history?
> >
>
> Who cares? Red herring. We are where we are. Move forward from here.
+1000!
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
In the incubator, leadership is also very important.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:50 AM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
wrote:
> Guys, aren't you forgetting something? The VP is to sign the Board
> report. Everything else that Justin is doing he's doing as a rank and
> file Incubator committer. If you disagree with Justin, that's one
> thing, but his being VP is orthogonal to your disagreement.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Guys, aren't you forgetting something? The VP is to sign the Board report.
And not even that. All I do is ensure the report is submitted on time, no signing is involved, and while I generally write the majority of the report anyone can contribute or help out in doing that.
> Everything else that Justin is doing he's doing as a rank and file Incubator committer.
In case it’s unclear anytime I do something (like vote on a release or email this list) it’s as an IPMC member and my view carries no more weight than other IPMC members.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
+1.
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>
> Guys, aren't you forgetting something? The VP is to sign the Board
> report. Everything else that Justin is doing he's doing as a rank and
> file Incubator committer. If you disagree with Justin, that's one
> thing, but his being VP is orthogonal to your disagreement.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Guys, aren't you forgetting something? The VP is to sign the Board
report. Everything else that Justin is doing he's doing as a rank and
file Incubator committer. If you disagree with Justin, that's one
thing, but his being VP is orthogonal to your disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Let me add my vote of full confidence in Justin as VP Incubator. He is
doing an excellent job.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:41 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:48 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > IMO, stop being pessimistic. Move forward with change to stop the
> gating,
> > > > and let podlings do their releases without all the IPMC burden.
> > >
> > > We want to be at “D” or “E” , we’re currently at “A” and there's a few
> > > steps that need to be taken. I don’t believe the IPMC can just say
> “make it
> > > so” and move from “A" to “E”. We also need consensus which I don’t
> believe
> > > we have yet, so we might end up at “F” or “G”. Also if we make this
> > > position “offical”, it will stop the same issue from reoccurring in the
> > > future. It has occurred every few years since the incubator has
> existed as
> > > far as I can tell. Well that’s the way I see it anyway, you and others
> may
> > > see it differently.
> > >
> >
> > I have zero confidence that you will move the pin here. You have shown
> zero
> > willingness. I'd like to see a new VP Incubator.
>
> And I would HATE to see a new VP Incubator (and I think a lot of podlings
> would
> agree with that). As a former VP Incubator I just wanted to acknowledge
> that
> Justin has probably done more than any other VP around here. He's pedantic
> at times and not of the "move fast and break things" mentality (like Greg)
> but
> he's the reason I'm still willing to be on the IPMC (I don't have any
> active podling
> to mentor).
>
> Greg, you've been very helpful on this thread -- but this email ain't so.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:48 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > IMO, stop being pessimistic. Move forward with change to stop the gating,
> > > and let podlings do their releases without all the IPMC burden.
> >
> > We want to be at “D” or “E” , we’re currently at “A” and there's a few
> > steps that need to be taken. I don’t believe the IPMC can just say “make it
> > so” and move from “A" to “E”. We also need consensus which I don’t believe
> > we have yet, so we might end up at “F” or “G”. Also if we make this
> > position “offical”, it will stop the same issue from reoccurring in the
> > future. It has occurred every few years since the incubator has existed as
> > far as I can tell. Well that’s the way I see it anyway, you and others may
> > see it differently.
> >
>
> I have zero confidence that you will move the pin here. You have shown zero
> willingness. I'd like to see a new VP Incubator.
And I would HATE to see a new VP Incubator (and I think a lot of podlings would
agree with that). As a former VP Incubator I just wanted to acknowledge that
Justin has probably done more than any other VP around here. He's pedantic
at times and not of the "move fast and break things" mentality (like Greg) but
he's the reason I'm still willing to be on the IPMC (I don't have any
active podling
to mentor).
Greg, you've been very helpful on this thread -- but this email ain't so.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:07 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is
> > there for.
>
> For that to happen I think the disclaimer text would need to change, I’m
> assuming you don’t think that. Even so a DISCLAIMER doesn’t remove legal
> obligations.
>
What the heck are you talking about? "legal obligations"? ... A tarball is
placed on a server. People download. Done.
As long as we don't include stolen source, then ... whatever.
Of course, the disclaimer changes. It should say "The Foundation doesn't
endorse this. It is an artifact produced by a third party, and we make no
guarantees on licensing, functionality, or security."
> I don't recall that advice. In fact, Roman seemed to indicate Legal would
> > be just fine with that.
>
> Only if the incubator is not considered a TLP but is a special construct
> within the Foundation. Several people have indicated they see the incubator
> as a TLP.
>
Blah blah blah. Wordsmithing crap. The Incubator is a PMC. Period. Fact. It
can operate however it needs to, to achieve the outcome assigned by the
Board.
The Board told it to onboard communities.
The Board did *NOT* tell it to follow standard release policy. That's just
an invalid assumption.
> > IMO, stop being pessimistic. Move forward with change to stop the gating,
> > and let podlings do their releases without all the IPMC burden.
>
> We want to be at “D” or “E” , we’re currently at “A” and there's a few
> steps that need to be taken. I don’t believe the IPMC can just say “make it
> so” and move from “A" to “E”. We also need consensus which I don’t believe
> we have yet, so we might end up at “F” or “G”. Also if we make this
> position “offical”, it will stop the same issue from reoccurring in the
> future. It has occurred every few years since the incubator has existed as
> far as I can tell. Well that’s the way I see it anyway, you and others may
> see it differently.
>
I have zero confidence that you will move the pin here. You have shown zero
willingness. I'd like to see a new VP Incubator.
-g
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is
> there for.
For that to happen I think the disclaimer text would need to change, I’m assuming you don’t think that. Even so a DISCLAIMER doesn’t remove legal obligations.
> I don't recall that advice. In fact, Roman seemed to indicate Legal would
> be just fine with that.
Only if the incubator is not considered a TLP but is a special construct within the Foundation. Several people have indicated they see the incubator as a TLP.
> IMO, stop being pessimistic. Move forward with change to stop the gating,
> and let podlings do their releases without all the IPMC burden.
We want to be at “D” or “E” , we’re currently at “A” and there's a few steps that need to be taken. I don’t believe the IPMC can just say “make it so” and move from “A" to “E”. We also need consensus which I don’t believe we have yet, so we might end up at “F” or “G”. Also if we make this position “offical”, it will stop the same issue from reoccurring in the future. It has occurred every few years since the incubator has existed as far as I can tell. Well that’s the way I see it anyway, you and others may see it differently.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
>...
> Hi,
>
> > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for
> each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal
> considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a
Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is
there for.
>...
> Which while I don’t disagree with, again I ask how can a PMC (i.e the
> incubator) make releases that are not in line with policy? Current advice
> seems that the board would not grant a blanket exception like to the IPMC
I don't recall that advice. In fact, Roman seemed to indicate Legal would
be just fine with that.
IMO, stop being pessimistic. Move forward with change to stop the gating,
and let podlings do their releases without all the IPMC burden.
>...
> > Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to
> provide legal oversight
>
> That may be the original thought, but historical threads bring up legal
> oversight very very early on. (I posted one from 2004 the other day).
> Hopefully someone can explain this history?
>
Who cares? Red herring. We are where we are. Move forward from here.
-g
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Of historical interest - “legal oversight” goes back to some to some the very first email about the incubator in 2003. Here's one [1] slightly later from Jim in 2005 who seemed to think back then legal aspects were important. Perhaps that's out of context, and you had to be there, it’s really hard to tell. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ This by Jim is also an interesting read [2] (also 2005) as is this one [3] (2006) as is that entire thread.
Do we think that is a good idea to continue to have this position that the incubator is special undocumented or unratified?
Thanks,
Justin
1.https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/54c9cef4395a2e300de241c521fc2e4210d5f56c3a5980dd6e5b35e3@1125588769@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
2. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/296e0103bbc420b856c932c4e71a35723824f44aa8d7493622507fd5@1135360046@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
3. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/73d0d3e852b281c005750cffb91c88079257dd82d56fa1ab4d53dc2c@1166622769@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a clear "paper trail" of approvals for that PPMC to enjoy the legal protection the foundation exists to provide. The IPMC vote, since the IPMC is, in fact, a true PMC, provides that legal provenance such that, should anything untoward happen, we can clearly show to outside legal entities corporate provenance without having to try to explain the intricacies of podlings, and PPMCs and PMC and et.al. :-)
Which while I don’t disagree with, again I ask how can a PMC (i.e the incubator) make releases that are not in line with policy? Current advice seems that the board would not grant a blanket exception like to the IPMC and we couldn't get consensus on submitting such a request to the board last month. So is it just a mater of refining that board proposal or is it a matter of changing the remit of the IPMC to make it clearer or even changing that the IPMC it is a TLP?
> Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight
That may be the original thought, but historical threads bring up legal oversight very very early on. (I posted one from 2004 the other day). Hopefully someone can explain this history?
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 1:01 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Jim said "Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way”
>
> If you look at the history threads I posted the other day one was about “legal oversight” way back in 2004.
>
There is history behind the Incubator from before 2004... Consider that the Incubator itself was created in late 2002 with:
"""
charged with
accepting new products into the Foundation, providing guidance
and support to help each new product engender their own
collaborative community, educating new developers in the
philosophy and guidelines for collaborative development as
defined by the members of the Foundation, and proposing to the
board the promotion of such products to independent PMC
status once their community has reached maturity.
"""
I am NOT discounting the importance of legal oversight. Far from it. Our legal protection is semi-worthless unless we take it seriously and ensure the correct checks. My position is rather that, IMO, most of the issues that podlings face, and even graduated TLPs, are not issues related to the legal matters but in understanding, groking and embracing The Apache Way, which was kind of the point at the very beginning.
If you consistently dilute a vaccine, after awhile, it will become useless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Jim said "Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way”
If you look at the history threads I posted the other day one was about “legal oversight” way back in 2004.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
All we need is a simple pivot back. This is the closest, easiest path. Prioritize and ease the acceptance of the Apache Way.
Our current Disclaimer is enough. If governing in the way then the path to a PMC is eased.
We need to assure that the lessons from all versions of the Incubator are considered. I’ve attempted to resurrect the Clutch.
Warm Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 9:29 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Jim said "Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way"
>
> I say... HEAR! HEAR!
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 4:36:02 AM
> To: Incubator General
> Subject: Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
>
>
>
>> On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I reconcile it as:
>>
>> Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call something an ASF release in order to place that release under the legal protection of the ASF. ASF releases may have policy non-compliance issues. No TLP can decide on its own to never comply with policy. But the business decision of the costs of delaying a release to correct non-compliance vs risks of distributing a release with any non-compliance is up to the TLP. VP Legal will assert a risk profile for any non-compliance and VP Legal or any ASF Member or PMC Member should try to stop a release if a TLP decides to distribute something highly risky. But it is up to any TLP. Including the IPMC. And so the Incubator can do whatever it wants within limits. Any of us should protest if the IPMC starts allowing releases with high risk. But with the disclaimer and -incubating suffixes, the risk of many non-compliance issues are low, even CatX and binary inclusions.
>>
>> Whether the incubator needs to have a secondary vote is not required by the above. IPMC members could drop in on the podling vote thread. Podlings with 3 active mentors that vote on the podling's vote thread could be deemed sufficient.
>>
>
> Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a clear "paper trail" of approvals for that PPMC to enjoy the legal protection the foundation exists to provide. The IPMC vote, since the IPMC is, in fact, a true PMC, provides that legal provenance such that, should anything untoward happen, we can clearly show to outside legal entities corporate provenance without having to try to explain the intricacies of podlings, and PPMCs and PMC and et.al. :-)
>
> Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way (TAW). Back then we had way too many projects that were TLP status that lacked even a basic awareness of TAW, and the board, rightfully, considered that a huge problem (this started with the mismanagement of the Jakarta project, which tried to create a sub-foundation within the ASF such that the Jakarta PMC was basically the "board" of that "foundation"... as these projects spun out, problems aplenty ensued). And so the Incubator was created to handle that problem.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@outlook.com>.
Jim said "Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way"
I say... HEAR! HEAR!
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 4:36:02 AM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
> On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> FWIW, I reconcile it as:
>
> Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call something an ASF release in order to place that release under the legal protection of the ASF. ASF releases may have policy non-compliance issues. No TLP can decide on its own to never comply with policy. But the business decision of the costs of delaying a release to correct non-compliance vs risks of distributing a release with any non-compliance is up to the TLP. VP Legal will assert a risk profile for any non-compliance and VP Legal or any ASF Member or PMC Member should try to stop a release if a TLP decides to distribute something highly risky. But it is up to any TLP. Including the IPMC. And so the Incubator can do whatever it wants within limits. Any of us should protest if the IPMC starts allowing releases with high risk. But with the disclaimer and -incubating suffixes, the risk of many non-compliance issues are low, even CatX and binary inclusions.
>
> Whether the incubator needs to have a secondary vote is not required by the above. IPMC members could drop in on the podling vote thread. Podlings with 3 active mentors that vote on the podling's vote thread could be deemed sufficient.
>
Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a clear "paper trail" of approvals for that PPMC to enjoy the legal protection the foundation exists to provide. The IPMC vote, since the IPMC is, in fact, a true PMC, provides that legal provenance such that, should anything untoward happen, we can clearly show to outside legal entities corporate provenance without having to try to explain the intricacies of podlings, and PPMCs and PMC and et.al. :-)
Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way (TAW). Back then we had way too many projects that were TLP status that lacked even a basic awareness of TAW, and the board, rightfully, considered that a huge problem (this started with the mismanagement of the Jakarta project, which tried to create a sub-foundation within the ASF such that the Jakarta PMC was basically the "board" of that "foundation"... as these projects spun out, problems aplenty ensued). And so the Incubator was created to handle that problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> FWIW, I reconcile it as:
>
> Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call something an ASF release in order to place that release under the legal protection of the ASF. ASF releases may have policy non-compliance issues. No TLP can decide on its own to never comply with policy. But the business decision of the costs of delaying a release to correct non-compliance vs risks of distributing a release with any non-compliance is up to the TLP. VP Legal will assert a risk profile for any non-compliance and VP Legal or any ASF Member or PMC Member should try to stop a release if a TLP decides to distribute something highly risky. But it is up to any TLP. Including the IPMC. And so the Incubator can do whatever it wants within limits. Any of us should protest if the IPMC starts allowing releases with high risk. But with the disclaimer and -incubating suffixes, the risk of many non-compliance issues are low, even CatX and binary inclusions.
>
> Whether the incubator needs to have a secondary vote is not required by the above. IPMC members could drop in on the podling vote thread. Podlings with 3 active mentors that vote on the podling's vote thread could be deemed sufficient.
>
Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a clear "paper trail" of approvals for that PPMC to enjoy the legal protection the foundation exists to provide. The IPMC vote, since the IPMC is, in fact, a true PMC, provides that legal provenance such that, should anything untoward happen, we can clearly show to outside legal entities corporate provenance without having to try to explain the intricacies of podlings, and PPMCs and PMC and et.al. :-)
Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way (TAW). Back then we had way too many projects that were TLP status that lacked even a basic awareness of TAW, and the board, rightfully, considered that a huge problem (this started with the mismanagement of the Jakarta project, which tried to create a sub-foundation within the ASF such that the Jakarta PMC was basically the "board" of that "foundation"... as these projects spun out, problems aplenty ensued). And so the Incubator was created to handle that problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
HI,
> But it is up to any TLP.
I wouldn't go that far for instance see [1] ("Projects MUST notify the Board…") and [2] ("Deviations from this policy may have an adverse effect …”) and [3] ("Every ASF release MUST comply with ASF licensing policy.”) As someone said in another thread a disclaimer doesn’t void legal rights or compliance.
The words "authorized business decision” were chosen very carefully again see [2]
> Whether the incubator needs to have a secondary vote is not required by the above.
Currently it requires that 3 IPMC members vote on it [4], most podlings can’t get 3 +1 IPMC votes on their list. Current incubator policy goes a little further [5]
> IPMC members could drop in on the podling vote thread.
IMO Currently the IPMC doesn’t have the bandwidth to do that, release candidates sometime struggle to get votes, having to vote on 2-5x as many RC is unlikely to be possible.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#administration
2. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#why
3. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing
4. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
5. https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org