incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrle Krantz <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling releases
Date Wed, 13 Mar 2019 08:17:14 GMT
That seems fixable

I hereby amend the proposal with the following definition of "non-ASF
release".  If this definition is not sufficient, consider accepting the
term as currently undefined and start a discussion to create a definition
without blocking this vote:

"A non-ASF release
* May or may not be staged on ASF infrastructure for the purposes of a
vote, but it is distributed via non-ASF infrastructure, AND
* Is either not linked from a podling's website, or is linked but clearly
marked as a non-ASF release."

As to how I propose dealing with user confusion resulting from the
incomplete status of podlings:  This problem already exists, and it's been
discussed here for years.  I don't think that we need to solve every
problem of the incubator with this one proposal.  Independent of this
proposal, my opinion on the matter is that it shouldn't be up to the
podlings to solve it.  Podlings already have enough on their plates with
learning a new culture, building a community, getting a technology stack
set up, moving their stuff onto our infrastructure, and adjusting to a new
set of policies and procedures.  Explaining the difference between a
podling and a TLP should be the incubator's job.  And we need to accept
that it's not possible to do it perfectly.

My request now:  This proposal has been in discussion since February 26th.
Discussion had petered out.  If y'all think we need more discussion we can
do that, but please a.) *say* we need more discussion and b.) participate
in it.  Otherwise, please vote.

Best Regards,

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:13 AM Justin Mclean <>

> Hi,
> +1 to the idea in general, but +0 to it in its current form.
> > "Podlings should be able to request feedback by starting a "[DISCUSS]"
> > thread or a "[VOTE]" thread.  The podling can decide whether they prefer
> > [DISCUSS] or [VOTE], but only a release which passes a vote by members of
> > the IPMC is an official ASF release.
> >
> > Discussion should give podlings feedback on what they would need to do to
> > bring their release in line with the requirements of an official ASF
> > release and thus for graduation to TLP.  Podlings will be responsible for
> > capturing feedback that they accept in work items for their project.
> >
> > Feedback provided in a discussion thread will not block a non-ASF
> release.
> > Asking for feedback using this mechanism is not obligatory, but rather a
> > service that the incubator offers and podlings can take advantage of."
> I think this is an excellent idea but the wording re "will not block a
> non-ASF release” may need some work. (A minus one vote on a release doesn’t
> block anything as it’s not a veto, but that’s not my main concern).
> Let's assume for a minute that an podling make a release candidate, votes
> on it and put it up for incubator discussion. The IPMC finds it contains
> GPL licensed software and provides that feedback. What does the podling do?
> They probably can’t make this an ASF release or place in the ASF
> distribution channel or link to on their download page. to do so they would
> problem need permission from legal and infra. If they place it elsewhere
> it’s likely it will cause user confusion to what is an ASF release and what
> is not. How do you see the proposal working in this situatiion?
> Part of the big problem here is with distinguishing the non-ASF releases
> from the ASF ones. A lot of podlings fail to follow branding, trademark or
> distribution policy when making non-ASF releases or worse make it easy for
> users to confuse non-ASF releases with actual ASF releases and promote
> these non-ASF releases as ASF ones.
> > Notes on proposal:
> > * This proposal does presume that we are allowing non-ASF releases in the
> > early days of a poddling.  My understanding of the discussion of the last
> > few weeks is that this has *actually* always been allowed, but that that
> > knowledge may not have been wide spread.
> It’s a little more subtle than that, 3rd parties can make non-ASF
> releases, podlings (or rather the IPMC) can’t. A member of the (P)PMC can
> act as a 3rd party. This has also been used in a couple of cases to get
> around making official ASF release.
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message