incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrle Krantz <>
Subject Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Date Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:16:05 GMT
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,

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:45 AM Alex Harui <> 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" <> 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 <> wrote:
>     > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:59 PM Justin Mclean <
>     > 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
>     >

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