On 11 October 2011 23:07, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ross Gardler > <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >> On 11 October 2011 22:05, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: >>> Rob Weir wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 15:13:31 -0400: >>>> To enable list-based discussion of the proposal, I'm pasting in the >>>> current wiki markup. This will allow anyone to enter inline >>>> commentary, as a response, to the quoted original. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>>> *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to >>>> terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at >>>> least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the >>>> forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators >>>> and Volunteers. >>> >>> The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, "The ASF will >>> grant 90 days to someone". Only the board and officers can make >>> commitments on behalf of the org. >> >> Whilst this is technically correct in practice the board delegates to >> its PMCs (that's the IPMC while in the incubator and the AOOo PMC >> after graduation). I'm not aware of a project entering into such an >> agreement before so there is no precedent that I'm aware of. >> >> The right thing to do in this case is define the agreement you would >> like to make and have it approved by the legal PMC. If legal@ are >> happy then the AOOo project can proceed, if not they will recommend a >> course of action. >> > > Legal? That sounds like extreme overkill. We're not making a > contract with an external organization. We're making an agreement > with ourselves. This is a governance question, not a legal one.
Quite possibly. > In any case, the right way to handle this is just to take out the > mention of "ASF". If indeed the PPMC has delegated authority, then it > is sufficient to just mention the PPMC. That'll work. Ross
