On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:07 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > 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.
No disagreement there and good clarification. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
