On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey >> <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: >>> Returning to this topic after an intermission... >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >>> <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> ...As one of the active developers I would have a serious problem if we as >>>>> project couldn't provide binary releases for our users. And I thought >>>>> the ASF is a serious enough institution that can ensure to deliver >>>>> binaries of these very popular end user oriented software and can of >>>>> course protect the very valuable brand OpenOffice that the ASF now owns >>>>> as well... >>>> >>>> As has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, at the >>>> moment ASF releases consist of source code, not binaries. >>> >>> My impression from this discussion is that many podling contributors are >>> dismayed by this policy, and that there is an element within the PPMC which >>> remains convinced that it is actually up to individual PMCs within the ASF >>> to >>> set policy as to whether binaries are official or not. >>> >> >> If there actually is an ASF-wide Policy concerning binaries then I >> would expect that: >> >> 1) It would come from the ASF Board, or from a Legal Affairs, not as >> individual opinions on the IPMC list >> >> 2) It would be documented someplace, as other important ASF policies >> are documented >> > > And 2a) Actually state the constraints of the policy, i.e., what is > allowed or disallowed by the policy. Merely inventing a label like > "convenience" or "unofficial" gives absolutely zero direction to > PMC's. It is just a label. Consider what the IPMC's Release Guide > gives with regards to the source artifact. It is labeled "canonical", > but that level is backed up with requirements, e.g., that every > release must include it, that it must be signed, etc. Similarly, > podling releases are not merely labeled "podling releases", but policy > defines requirements, e.g., a disclaimer, a required IPMC vote, etc. > > I hope I am not being too pedantic here. But I would like to have a > policy defined here so any PMC can determine whether they are in > compliance. But so far I just hear strongly held opinions that amount > to applying labels, but not mandating or forbidden any actions with > regards to artifacts that bear these labels. > > Consider: If some IPMC members declared loudly that "It is ASF policy > that binary artifacts are 'Umbabuga'", what exactly would you expect a > Podling to do, given that Umbabuga is an undefined term with no policy > mandated or forbidden actions? > > There is a seductive appeal to reaching consensus on a label. But it > avoids the hard part of policy development, the useful part: reaching > consensus on constraints to actions.
The AOO PPMC was asked to take this discussion along with digital signature issue to legal-discuss to get advice. Whether or not this becomes guidance for AOO or official foundation wide policy is ultimately up to the Board and the Membership. Regards, Dave > > >> 3) That the policies is applied not only to AOO, but to other podlings >> and to TLP's as well. >> >> Until that happens, I hear only opinions. But opinions, even widely >> held opinions, even Roy opinions, are not the same as policy. >> >> -Rob >> >>>> OTOH I don't think anybody said the ASF will never allow projects to >>>> distribute binaries - but people who want to do that need to get >>>> together (*) and come up with a proposal that's compatible with the >>>> ASF's goals and constraints, so that a clear policy can be set. >>> >>> I'm concerned that such an effort may not be completed, and that once the >>> podling graduates, AOO binaries will once again be advertised as official, >>> placing the project in conflict with ASF-wide policy. It may be that some >>> within the newly formed PMC will speak out in favor of the ASF status quo, >>> but >>> as their position will likely be inexpedient and unpopular, it may be >>> difficult to prevail. >>> >>> Of course I don't know how things will play out, but it seems to me that >>> reactions from podling contributors have ranged from discouraged to >>> skeptical >>> to antagonistic and that there is limited enthusisasm for working within >>> the ASF >>> on this matter. >>> >>> Gaming out this pessimistic scenario, what would it look like if the Board >>> were forced to clamp down on a rebellious AOO PMC to enforce ASF policy >>> regarding binary releases? >>> >>> If we believe that we are adequately prepared for such circumstances, then I >>> think that's good enough and that fully resolving the issue of binary >>> releases prior to AOO's graduation is not required. >>> >>> Marvin Humphrey >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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
