incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms
Date Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:09:43 GMT
My reading of the wording is that there is now more wiggle room for
podlings rather than more restrictions.

Cheers, Paul.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 5:51 PM Justin Mclean <>

> Hi,
> > I think all of these situations can occur with or without the new
> incubator policy.
> It possibles yes, but they would be less likely to occur.
> > his can only be more restrictive than the original ASF policies.
> These are not more restrictive than current policy. I really don’t
> understand why you think that they are. Please point out where that is the
> case and I’ll correct it.
> > If there’s consensus on the guideline among the TLPs
> There probably is not consensus among TLP on this and different projects
> will do it in different ways. That is fine as long as it complies, but
> working that does can be difficult.  Some TLP projects may not be complying
> with policy and not be aware of it, which may become a future issue. Even
> worse podlings may copy them rather that actually reading and understanding
> ASF policy or the intent behind it.
> This document allows for a variety of interpretation - "All of the above
> SHOULD be followed. The podling can ask the IPMC for permission to do
> otherwise.” Note the use of the word SHOULD rather than MUST. SHOULD means
> unless you have a good reason to do otherwise.
> > and everyone agrees with your assessment, why would it take ASF years to
> reach consensus on them?
> It taken years to get to this point and these issues and the like have
> been discussed for over a decade without resolution and that’s why policy
> don’t exist. The current board is trying to address that but it’s likely to
> be a slow process.
> The fact that once again this discussion has got derailed leaves me with
> very little hope that this will get resolved. A large amount of work has
> been put into this by many people, and it's unfortunate that these
> objections were brought up so late in the process.
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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