Exactly- just work within the constraints and there is no practical problem whatsoever.
>________________________________ > From: Andrew Rist <andrew.r...@oracle.com> >To: general@incubator.apache.org >Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:44 PM >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote > > >On 8/24/2012 11:19 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> Really, all this fuss over the LABELLING of >> a file being distributed does not add value >> to either the org, the podling, or the users >> of the software. Nowhere is it written that >> you CANNOT DISTRIBUTE BINARIES, however it >> has always been clear that they are provided >> for the convenience of our users, not as part >> of an "official" release. That however does >> not mean that things like release announcements >> cannot refer users to those binaries, it simply >> means those announcements need to reference the >> sources as "the thing that was formally voted on >> and approved by the ASF". > >Thus... > >Binaries created /from /the Official Release? >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> >>> To: general@incubator.apache.org >>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 1:56 PM >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > >
