+1 this is reasonable. On 26/02/14 8:14 pm, "Chip Childers" <chipchild...@apache.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi ><animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> Folks since the liability of Release manager has been called out >>explicitly for the release I want to call out that I cannot take >>personal liability for a release and I am not sure why would anyone else >>in Release Manager role will take up personal liability. I don't see >>anything called out in our bylaws that states Release Manager being >>liable. >> >> That being said I am seeking advice from ASF mentors and will discuss >>it in PMC. I will proceed and build an RC after this issue is resolved. >> >> Thanks >> Animesh > >A couple of things: > >First, we don't have any "mentors" anymore... we're a TLP. > >Second, although the question of "liability" has been clarified in the >private@ thread, I'll summarize briefly here: > >The reason that we follow the voting process (where the PMC votes are >binding) and other ASF-wide policies, is so that any release is an >"act of the foundation" and not an act of an individual. The point is >that if someone were to purposefully ignore policy, then they put >themselves at risk. The whole reason for the foundation to have it's >policies is to protect all of the committers and contributors from >personal liability! So the only thing that really matters is that if >we follow the policies of the foundation, there's nothing to worry >about. > >Being a release manager is nothing to worry about... the whole PMC is >helping to ensure that we follow policies. As our current 4.3 issue >has pointed out, sometimes this means we have to slow down to fix >something. If something slipped through, it's still not a "liability" >issue in practical terms. It's just a mistake that we would then work >to correct. > >Make sense? > >-chip
