incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases
Date Fri, 07 Jun 2019 18:47:33 GMT
blah blah "legal risk" blah blah.

Really. Let's step back and consider what we're talking about. A podling
making a release as they learn the ropes of Apache-style governance. With a

"OMG! There is GPL code in there!" ... no legal risk. We only care about
GPL from a policy standpoint. Let it through.

"OMG! No NOTICE file!" ... well, easy to fix, unlike a GPL dependency.
Maybe stop the release, but there isn't any "legal risk" so maybe just
write a Jira ticket and move on. Copyrights, IP, and licensing are not
magically thrown out the window if a file is not present. All of that is
inherent, and a NOTICE file merely helps to surface IP issues, rather than

And just what is this "legal risk" term that people are throwing about?
Please define, before use.


On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 1:00 PM Craig Russell <> wrote:

> Hi Justin,
> As a board member, I'm not comfortable with granting a blanket exception
> to policy that might put us at legal risk.
> As an IPMC member, I think that we do not want to allow podlings to
> release material that might put us at legal risk. I do think that the IPMC
> under today's policy has the ability to decide whether a podling release
> puts us at risk and therefore should be blocked. So I am not convinced that
> the IPMC needs to ask for this waiver from the board.
> My understanding as an IPMC member is that there are some items in a
> release that can be  allowed where they would not be in a TLP release.
> These things have historically drawn -1 votes from IPMC members.
> I think there is consensus that a podling release does not have to conform
> in every respect to what we expect from a TLP release.
> I think that the incubator IPMC should first flesh out (on the general@
> list) which materials in a podling release are
> a) fine;
> b) minor issue (file a JIRA and fix before graduation); or
> c) blocker (puts the foundation at risk).
> The detail of what is minor versus what it a blocker is the most important
> thing that needs clarity. As of now, I don't see consensus although I see
> movement.
> Craig
> > On Jun 6, 2019, at 11:45 PM, Justin Mclean <>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As suggested I’ve collated information from several threads and turned
> it into a proposal for the board. Any edits, feedback, agreement,
> disagreement etc etc is welcome. In particular it would be nice  to hear
> some feedback from people who are in favour of this.
> >
> > Note that this is important as it probably changes the advice mentors
> will give their podlings on releases and change in a positive way how we
> vote on releases with serious issues in them. If you are a mentor or vote
> on releases please read it. Again feedback welcome.
> >
> > If the board agrees with the proposal I think we'll need to update the
> incubator DISCLAIMER. I’ve suggested what we might add in the proposal but
> the exact changes can to be discussed here. If the board disagrees with the
> proposal I suggest we discuss and come up with a list of serious issues
> that the IPMC recommends voting -1 vote on a release. This is just
> guidance, not rules, and there may of course be exceptions. (For instance
> you could ask VP legal for an exception as has been done in the past.)
> That way mentors and podlings have clear expectations on releases must
> contain.
> >
> > The proposal can be found in the draft board report. [1]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> Craig L Russell
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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