On 1 June 2012 11:09, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I hope this helps
It certainly does - thank you for taking the time to do this. I'm not going to comment as I am not clear on ASF policy in this case. I will leave it a few days to hear from people who wish to either: a) point at a written ASF policy that clearly permits this or b) point at a written ASF policy that clearly disallows this (I guess there might be a need for correction of any errors Juergen might have made, but lets be sure to stay to *facts* about this specific case rather than conjecture or situations in other cases) If consensus around either a) or b) is not formed then we need to seek the input of the IPMC (remember legal@ delegated to the IPMC). If the IPMC cannot give clarity then we go to legal@. If we repeat this process x times (once for each case that is notably different from this one) we'll have the clarity we need to bring consensus and thus plan for graduation. Once again, thank you Jeurgen. Ross > > Juergen > > > On 6/1/12 11:07 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 1 June 2012 09:50, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/1/12 9:47 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. >>>> On May 31, 2012 5:26 PM, "Pedro Giffuni" <p...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >> >> ... >> >>>>> I admit this is very clear. I don't expect such development to be >>>>> a requirement for graduation but the transitory situation of a source >>>>> release that depends on carrying category-B tarballs in SVN now is >>>>> not really acceptable. >>>> >>>> I do expect this to be sorted out before graduation. >>> >>> it is addressed already >>> >>>> That might be as simple as getting clarity on the policy, it might be more >>>> than that. However, as a mentor I am uncertain about the practice adopted >>>> here and as such will not encourage the IPMC to vote for graduation until >>>> someone in the PPMC gets clarity. >>> >>> what do you expect? >> >> Someone needs to take out all the rhetoric and abstract concepts. Pick >> any one of the cat-b cases and describe *exactly* how it is addressed >> in that case and *exactly* how this conforms to documented ASF >> policies. >> >> Once we have clarity on the first case we can ask whether any of the >> other cases are different and then examine those. >> >>> Should we remove all this dependencies and make AOO more or less >>> unusable or better uninteresting for real usage? >> >> I am making no comment on what the technical solution is. >> >> I want to see consensus. Consensus cannot be gained by shouting at one >> another about vague examples. I want concrete examples on a case by >> case basis until nobody is objecting or until the issues can be >> clearly communicated to either the IPMC or legal@ so that a >> clarification of ASF policy can be made. >> >>> Anyway I think we tried everything to address this and we still work on >>> improvements step by step. If that is not enough for graduation I would >>> feel very unsatisfied. >> >> It is, and always has been, a condition of graduation that the IP >> situation in the project conforms to ASF policies. There is a question >> about these tarballs and it must be resolved before graduation. >> >> Ross > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
