On 21 August 2012 14:38, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <twgo...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote: >>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote: >>>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin. >>>> >>>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release. >>>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you >>>> justify this new requirement? >>> >>> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you >>> are now. Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer >>> organization. The backs and forths you are seeing here are >>> normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like >>> this. This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are >>> either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller >>> organizations where it was easier to come to a decision. Try >>> to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part >>> of the wider Apache community (not just your project). Help >>> improve things where you see they are lacking. This community >>> aspect is very important at Apache. >>> >>> As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement. The >>> issue just wasn't spotted last time. Yes, that's annoying, but >>> it can't be helped. The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the >>> most important files in your distribution, and you should make >>> every effort to get them right. Sebb raises valid concerns that >>> need to be addressed. > > this point has, in fact, been the subject of a long-standing debate in > the IPMC. While I have the greatest respect for sebb, there are other > members of this PMC for whom I also have great respect who have taken > the opposite view -- that - within reason - flaws in these files can > be noted and repaired for the next release.
There are two issues here: 1) whether the NOTICE file is correct 2) if not, whether the problems are such as to require a respin. I hope we are agreed that the NOTICE file is not correct. The reason I think that problems in NOTICE files are to be taken seriously is that the N (&L) files are vital for our licensing. > The situation at hand is complicated by the running graduation thread > for AOO, since it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that these > files have achieved a consensus state before graduation. However, > that's just a thought on my part. > > > > >>> >> >> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break >> them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party >> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them. >> Give them 30 minutes. Compare the results. >> >> I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in >> substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within >> the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct". >> >> -Rob >> >>> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-) >>> >>> BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job. I was not optimistic >>> when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where >>> you are now. Keep up the good work. >>> >>> --Thilo >>> >>> >>>> >>>> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and >>>> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue >>>> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release. >>>> >>>> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases. >>>> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not >>>> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the >>>> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security >>>> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release >>>> vote. >>>> >>>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use >>>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases. >>>> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst >>>> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release >>>> artefacts has not.) >>>> >>>> -- Brane >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
