On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:20 PM Pierre Smits <pierresm...@apache.org> wrote:
> [...] > As for PMC Members claiming that the Github services (repositories etc.) > are not *official* ASF tools, I suggest these persons stop this kind of FUD > (and maybe check back with the ASF). > Pierre, rather than accusing others of FUD, it would be more constructive to the conversation to research and provide references that support a decision. I did a research and I have found this useful ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-249 After carefully reviewing the various comments/opinions posted there, I think we can conclude that from the legal point-of-view, as an ASF project, we can adopt a ticketing system that is not maintained by the ASF (such as GH Issues) provided that we setup all notifications to be archived to a mailing list managed by the ASF (such as notifications@ofbiz...); in this way, the ASF will always have an history log of all the information shared in GH Issues even in the unlikely case that GH will disappear, change license, shut down the service etc... The other, valid in my opinion, concern expressed in that ticket about adopting GH Issues and GH PR as the only mechanism to accept reports and contributions is that people will have to create an account and accept the Terms of Services of a 3rd party company (GitHub). And the 3rd party may also apply restrictions to the users (see for example https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/29/github-ban-sanctioned-countries/ ) that may be different from the ones that are accepted by the ASF. In my opinion, these are concerns that need to be addressed and discussed with patience (not accusing others on disagreement) and calm: however, for this specific case, we could, in my opinion, consider GH Issues and GH PR as our primary mechanisms but also accept contributions via our mailing lists (for example) for the ones that can not or don't want to register an account with a 3rd party company. Jacopo
