incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <>
Subject Re: What is "The Apache Way"?
Date Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:37:04 GMT
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<> wrote:
> Well, David, I'm afraid you are the authoritative source on the policy you use as an

:) Well - I suppose I did open myself up for that.

> If it's not documented and that's a problem then it's *your* problem. You could (given
even more time to volunteer to the ASF, solve it however you like (e.g. Write the doc, ask
the community to write it, ask for budget to have a contract write it, something else), but
it's you and the infra team that own this.

So, infra has a number of policies - like not keeping more than the
current release on dist, giving us a heads up if your artifacts are
going to be more 1GB, but they are largely centered around efficient
operation of infrastructure, and not Apache Doctrine. Defining (and by
extension enforcing) Apache Doctrine, means that infrastructure
becomes the Foundation's policeman, at least in certain matters.
Infrastructure, derives authority from the office of the President.
Based on my reading of the bylaws, and the almost recent discussion
around Brand issues - I walked away with the fact that the office of
the President may not be able to set binding policy on projects.
(differentiated from binding policy of how you may use resources of
the Foundation).

In the specific example I referenced - which came up in May (on
board-private because there was a security issue related to it) I was
told to carry the issue to the public board mailing list after the
security issue was dealt with because it needed discussing. It did get
discussed - release policy (which I think was later declared to be a
legal issue), which is a board committee. After that thread revealed
that there was no written policy, I explicitly asked several directors
(individually) if that was within my scope to define, so as to remove
the ambiguity and walked away with the impression that most of them
felt it was not within my level of authority.

> I hope you won't take this personally, its not meant that way. As a volunteer you do
a fantastic job and we are all immensely grateful. However, you did feed me a perfect way
to illustrate the point I've been trying to make when highlighting docs and saying "patches

Not at all.
My assumption was that 'setting binding policy on projects' was
something specifically excluded from my level of authority, as an
officer derived from the Office of the President. If that is not the
case, I am happy to define and publish such things within the realm of

> Perhaps it is time we hired a contractor to draw up the one document of truth?
> I'm working on the 2015 budget now. Any volunteers to own this? Ownership is ensuring
that the individual gets access to all the appropriate VPs and that those VPs are able to
provide the necessary input.

I think Marvin could manage this well (yes, this is me pushing you in
front of the bus, Marvin. My apologies). Failing that, I'm happy to
tackle management of that.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message