ASF Release Policy?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Is there a uniform release policy for the ASF?  For example, here are two
documents:

  http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html

"Technically, any one can make a release of the source code due to the
Apache Software License. However, only members of the Apache HTTP Server
Project (committers) to project can make a release designated with Apache."

The primary control has to do with the release "quality":

  alpha: "When a release is initially created, it automatically becomes
alpha quality."
   beta: "at least three committers have voted positively for beta status
and there were
          more positive than negative votes for beta designation."
     GA: "at least three committers have voted positively for GA status and
that there
         "were more positive than negative votes for GA designation."

No mention of PMC involvement, for example.  On the other hand, Jakarta:

"After a new release is built, it must be tested before being released to
the public. Majority approval is required before the release can be made.
Once a release is approved by the Committers, the Project Management
Committee can authorize its distribution on behalf of the Foundation." -
from http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html.

Which is interesting, since most people apparently aren't aware that Jakarta
sub-projects are supposed to get Jakarta PMC approval before distributing a
Release.

The XML Project has the same text as Jakarta, minus the sentence about the
PMC requirement.  I have no idea what other projects require.

So ... finishing where I started: is there a uniform ASF policy on this
issue?  If so, what is it, and where is it documented?  :-)

	--- Noel

RE: ASF Release Policy?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

> > So ... finishing where I started: is there a uniform ASF policy on
> > this issue?  If so, what is it, and where is it documented?  :-)

> Not really.  We can try to hash out what we think the ideals should
> be.

Well, starting with first principles: should there be a uniform ASF release
policy?  Or, more likely, a uniform set of requirements that a project
release policy must fulfill?  If so, what are they?

I would expect the ASF to want to ensure that whatever release process is
used by a project, that it meets whatever legal requirements are present to
ensure proper oversight and indemnification.  As I understand it, the ASF
empowers an officer of the corporation, the PMC Chair, to act on behalf of
the corporation within the scope of that PMC.  The PMC Chair is the person
who legally binds the corporation.  The PMC Members and/or Committers may
vote, but the legally binding action is the act of the PMC Chair.

So, in part I'm not sure that this is really even the right place for the
discussion.  Perhaps the first thing, unless it has aleady been done, is for
the Board to identify if there are any legal requirements that must be met.
If so, those must be incorporated into any ASF release policy, uniform or
otherwise, and if not then we haven't a legal need for a uniform release
policy.

	--- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org

Re: ASF Release Policy?

[Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>]

--On Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:52 PM -0500 "Noel J. Bergman" 
<no...@devtech.com> wrote:

> Is there a uniform release policy for the ASF?  For example, here
> are two documents:

AFAIK, there isn't a uniform policy.

>   http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
> "Technically, any one can make a release of the source code due to
> the Apache Software License. However, only members of the Apache
> HTTP Server Project (committers) to project can make a release
> designated with Apache."
>
> The primary control has to do with the release "quality":
>
>   alpha: "When a release is initially created, it automatically
> becomes alpha quality."
>    beta: "at least three committers have voted positively for beta
> status and there were
>           more positive than negative votes for beta designation."
>      GA: "at least three committers have voted positively for GA
> status and that there
>          "were more positive than negative votes for GA
> designation."

Yeah, but that is really specific to httpd rather than HTTP Server. 
And, since we've gone to a stable/unstable branch model, we don't use 
this designation on stable branch anymore.  Unstable would still 
follow these guidelines, I guess.

> No mention of PMC involvement, for example.  On the other hand,

Well, remember, in HTTP Server, we have a policy where *almost* every 
committer is a member of the PMC.  By the time someone is doing a 
release, they're *usually* a PMC member.  It's pretty hard to trip 
over someone in dev@httpd who isn't a PMCer.  So, the chances of a 
release happening without the PMC being aware of it and voting on it 
is about zero.

> Which is interesting, since most people apparently aren't aware
> that Jakarta sub-projects are supposed to get Jakarta PMC approval
> before distributing a Release.

My guess is this policy isn't enforced.  I'm sure that Sam will 
pounce on me if I'm wrong.

> The XML Project has the same text as Jakarta, minus the sentence
> about the PMC requirement.  I have no idea what other projects
> require.

Probably XML's guidelines are closer to reality than Jakarta's.  =)

> So ... finishing where I started: is there a uniform ASF policy on
> this issue?  If so, what is it, and where is it documented?  :-)

Not really.  We can try to hash out what we think the ideals should 
be.  -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org