All we need is a simple pivot back. This is the closest, easiest path. Prioritize and ease the acceptance of the Apache Way.
Our current Disclaimer is enough. If governing in the way then the path to a PMC is eased. We need to assure that the lessons from all versions of the Incubator are considered. I’ve attempted to resurrect the Clutch. Warm Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 2, 2019, at 9:29 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@outlook.com> wrote: > > Jim said "Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT > to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache > Way" > > I say... HEAR! HEAR! > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > ________________________________ > From: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 4:36:02 AM > To: Incubator General > Subject: Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache > > > >> On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for each > PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal considerations > "kick in" as it were. So we need a clear "paper trail" of approvals for that > PPMC to enjoy the legal protection the foundation exists to provide. The IPMC > vote, since the IPMC is, in fact, a true PMC, provides that legal provenance > such that, should anything untoward happen, we can clearly show to outside > legal entities corporate provenance without having to try to explain the > intricacies of podlings, and PPMCs and PMC and et.al. :-) > > Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide > legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way (TAW). > Back then we had way too many projects that were TLP status that lacked even > a basic awareness of TAW, and the board, rightfully, considered that a huge > problem (this started with the mismanagement of the Jakarta project, which > tried to create a sub-foundation within the ASF such that the Jakarta PMC was > basically the "board" of that "foundation"... as these projects spun out, > problems aplenty ensued). And so the Incubator was created to handle that > problem. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
