On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:12 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:03 PM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > But, IMO, the reason the question went to VP Legal is that it doesn't > > really matter what the IPMC thinks if their "business decision" will have > > an impact on the "Legal Shield" and the insurance premiums that go with it. > > So I think the question got lost on legal-discuss. The "space of options" > > should probably be constrained by the "Legal Shield". > > Nope. That's not how any of the legal works. Legal never makes policy > -- legal always evaluates risk profiles of the policy that business > stakeholders make. > > In fact, and thin may come as a shock, legal never *blocks* anything. > Legal doesn't have veto power simply because the business decision > always trupms legal.
Please interpret the following statement extremely narrowly: the Legal Affairs committee is a board committee. Read section 5.9 of the ASF bylaws. I believe that the correct way to interpret this is that the Legal Committee (and therefore, VP, Legal) is empowered to make business decisions on behalf of the ASF. This would include pulling a release or disbanding a committee. Now I'm not suggesting that you start vetoing anything. I'm just saying that should you find yourself in a position where a veto is necessary, don't question whether or not you have that authority. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
