+1 Dana Walker
Associate Software Engineer Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> <https://red.ht/sig> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: > +0 > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Voting closes June 2nd. >> >> I have read this through and appreciate @richardfontana's >> response/explanation to questions: https://github.com/pulp/pups/p >> ull/9#issuecomment-393317027 >> >> +1 >> >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Through feedback on the issue and discussion in #pulp-dev, one small >>>> language revision [0] was added to PUP5 [1]. I believe we are ready to call >>>> a vote. >>>> >>>> Voting for PUP5 is open and will close on June 2nd. Please respond with >>>> your vote to this thread if you feel so inclined (lazy consensus). Barring >>>> any -1's cast, PUP5 will be merged on June 4th. >>>> >>>> [0]: https://github.com/richardfontana/pups/commit/99fcd35e1cc396 >>>> a1ba5a34555f093304dd07a333 >>>> [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9 >>>> >>>> -Brian >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> @ipanova, I think of the core team as only maintaining pulp/pulp and >>>>> pulp/devel so I limit the scope of this to those repos only. I think >>>>> pulp_rpm (or any plugin) could adopt the CCRC without a PUP by following >>>>> the "Displaying the CRCC section >>>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files#diff-e883d39d60672a684862d3cef971e94eR106>" >>>>> in their own repo. >>>>> >>>>> @dawalker, relicensing to GPLv3 is an alternative. It's not a bad >>>>> option, but it would be more complicated. Since every committer with even >>>>> a >>>>> single line of current code is a copyright holder of the codebase, and it >>>>> would require a 100% signoff from all copyright holders, in practice this >>>>> can be difficult. Also someone may not even use that email anymore so it >>>>> may not even be possible. I haven't assessed how many Pulp3 committers we >>>>> have currently for the Pulp3 codebase. >>>>> >>>>> I was recently part of a relicensing which failed >>>>> <https://github.com/python-bugzilla/python-bugzilla/issues/25>, but >>>>> it shows what the process looks like: https://github.com/python-bugz >>>>> illa/python-bugzilla/issues/25 If someone wants to champion switching >>>>> to GPLv3 and create an issue like that and get all the signoffs I'm not >>>>> opposed to relicensing to GPLv3 instead of adopting the CRCC. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Other than the noted point that it takes time, is there any reason >>>>>> why Pulp should stay on the current license instead of moving to GPLv3 >>>>>> (one >>>>>> of the stated alternatives in this PUP)? I don't know much about the >>>>>> differences currently, but it strikes me that our new Pulp 3 using >>>>>> Python 3 >>>>>> would be a good fit for moving to a new license as well that has taken >>>>>> various things such as this enforcement issue into account and evolved >>>>>> over >>>>>> time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> --Dana >>>>>> >>>>>> Dana Walker >>>>>> >>>>>> Associate Software Engineer >>>>>> >>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> *understanding >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ina Panova >>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>>>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To make a concrete example to prove my understating: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since pulp_rpm is maintained by core team we could adopt this >>>>>>>> change, meanwhile pulp_deb is beyond our control and we( core team) >>>>>>>> cannot >>>>>>>> enforce or influence this change. >>>>>>>> Yes? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ina Panova >>>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>>>>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A Pulp Update Proposal (PUP) pull request has been opened by the >>>>>>>>> go-to-lawyer for the Pulp community, Richard Fontana. The PUP is PUP5 >>>>>>>>> [0]. >>>>>>>>> I don't want to paraphrase it here, so please read it [0] if you are >>>>>>>>> interested to understand what it does. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am proposing a period of questions/discussion via the list/PR >>>>>>>>> and then a call for a vote according to the process. All questions are >>>>>>>>> welcome, please ask. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> # Timeline >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Today - May 18th mailing list and PR discussion >>>>>>>>> May 18th - formally call for a vote which would end 12 calendar >>>>>>>>> days from then May 30th >>>>>>>>> May 30th - Merge or reject >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> # FAQs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this relicensing Pulp? >>>>>>>>> No. It's still GPLv2. This adopts a procedural enforment approach >>>>>>>>> within the existing license. See @rfontana's response here: >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9#issuecomment-384523020 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do all prior contributors need to sign off on this change? >>>>>>>>> No, because it's not a relicensing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does this affect core, plugins, or both? >>>>>>>>> This PR is only scoped to affect the GPLv2 codebases maintained by >>>>>>>>> the core team. Plugins make their own decisions without PUPs. >>>>>>>>> Initially >>>>>>>>> this would be pulp/pulp, and as other GPLv2 repositories are >>>>>>>>> maintained by >>>>>>>>> the core team, it would apply to this in the future as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
