FWIW, I reconcile it as:
Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call something an ASF
release in order to place that release under the legal protection of the ASF.
ASF releases may have policy non-compliance issues. No TLP can decide on its
own to never comply with policy. But the business decision of the costs of
delaying a release to correct non-compliance vs risks of distributing a release
with any non-compliance is up to the TLP. VP Legal will assert a risk profile
for any non-compliance and VP Legal or any ASF Member or PMC Member should try
to stop a release if a TLP decides to distribute something highly risky. But
it is up to any TLP. Including the IPMC. And so the Incubator can do whatever
it wants within limits. Any of us should protest if the IPMC starts allowing
releases with high risk. But with the disclaimer and -incubating suffixes, the
risk of many non-compliance issues are low, even CatX and binary inclusions.
Whether the incubator needs to have a secondary vote is not required by the
above. IPMC members could drop in on the podling vote thread. Podlings with 3
active mentors that vote on the podling's vote thread could be deemed
sufficient.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 6/30/19, 12:11 PM, "Davor Bonaci" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
I do -not- have a problem where this is all tracking towards and believe it
is right, but I do have a problem with how it is justified and explained.
People say: "Incubator is a PMC/TLP", "Incubator takes on the resultant
legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release", "we can NOT allow
any relaxation of the ASF release policy for a TLP", and then conclude that
Incubator can do ~whatever it wants. This logic does not pass the
consistency test.
So... if you want that [new] people in the future don't trip on this, it is
*necessary* to break this logic somehow.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:31 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:59 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > > It appears there is general consensus that "right to distribute
> closed
> > source" would be the main and potentially only blocker for podlings.
> >
> > That is not the case (re this is a blocker) I suggest you read that
legal
> > thread again. Also infra makes distribution policy.
> >
>
> *distribution*
>
> Infra does not care about the contents. If a PMC says "we +1 the
contents",
> then Infra will not second-guess that. Leave out LICENSE, NOTICE, or do
> those files wrong. Include jars, Cat X source. Whatever. We aren't going
to
> police that. Binaries in there? Knock yourself out. Legal might get on
your
> case, but that's Not Our Problem(tm).
>
> If the IPMC says "here is a podling tarball that we will allow", then it
> can be put into distribution. Use whatever rules you want for the
contents,
> or lack of rules. Infra just wants it placed into our distribution system
> in a specific way, to ensure correctness, auditing, and resilience.
>
> VP Infra has already stated the above. As an Officer of Infrastructure, I
> concur and reiterate that position.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Stein
> InfraAdmin, ASF
>
