incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <>
Subject Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)
Date Thu, 15 Aug 2019 02:12:30 GMT

> That Infra and the board will allow a podling to put packages containing the WIP-disclaimer
on dist.a.o as long as those packages

Infra have already confirmed that’s OK, legal have said it OK with some conditions, including
if incubator releases are considered special. There is a proposal in the incubator board report
to do this, hopefully the board will accept it.

> This new disclaimer should allow mentors to allow the podlings to publish packages for
their users the way they probably did before entering incubation.

Not quite, but it does relax things, see [1]

>  The podlings will have the option to push the packages to dist.a.o and then, if they
want the legal shield protection, call for a vote from the IPMC if they don't have 3 mentor

I’m not sure this should be optional, or up to the PPMC to decide, but it's an interesting
idea to consider. Reason being is that the PPMC may not be in the best position (being new
to the ASF) to recognise what the risk is. I’m not sure what the risk is or how (or if at
all) it might impact on the insurance.

> The key risk here is whether the WIP disclaimer will help ward off possible legal action
by a user of the package.

A disclaimer ultimately is probably no protection. For instance, you can’t put up a sign
in a shop that says “No Refunds” when you have a right to a refund under consumer law.
But I think the intention is clear that podlings what to do the right thing.

>  The new disclaimer should greatly reduce the chances of a -1 vote.  Instead, issues
found will be logged in the podling's bug tracker.

Yep that was the whole idea.

>  Practically speaking, if Justin is one of the 3 mentors, the podiing is probably in
good shape heading towards graduation, of not, it probably is a good idea to get Justin to
review the packages at some point.

Well the objective should be learn how to review releases on their own, rather than rely on
me to check it for you, as you’re going to have to do that as a TLP.

>  It was this late gate which was stricter with the old disclaimer that was the problem
for Zipkin.

There were a larger number of issue steer as well. (Also while in incubation Zipkin made non
offical releases.)


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