Hi, > I agree with other respondents that 'serious' seems bad here. To me the > serious ones are the only ones they can't release with.
So we just continue as is then? You have any suggests to what we change? > ReleaseBlocking: Has a LICENSE. Legally permitted to release and complies > with the license via some mechanism. We currently allow releases that are not strictly legal. This would be a step backwards. > GraduationBlocking: Everything else; including complying with the license > via our preferred mechanism (i.e. we might want the MIT license text in our > LICENSE file, but would accept it being in the source header of the files > themselves). We currently allow podlings to graduate with some issues as longs as the PPMC is dealing with them. This would be a step backwards. > I don't see a need to go to the board on this :) If we don’t want to change anything - sure there's no need to go to the board. >> issues have been fixed. The IPMC will add additional information to the > incubator DISCLAIMER to cover that podling release may not abide by all > > The IPMC? That sounds like a people scaling problem. The podling committee > should handle it. I mean just changing this page [1] , podlings can update their own disclaimers. > "This release still has the following issues that will need to be resolved > before the Foo Project can graduate to an Apache vetted Top Level Project” What about unknown issues? > Are the board lawyers? :) Until you have a well-defined list, I doubt > anything could be confirmed. I'd go with: "Conceptually what you describe > could lead to a situation where a PPMC releases a project fully compliant > with the ASF's expectations. “ I assume you mean “not fully compliant”? Thanks, Justin 1. https://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#disclaimers --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
