With no blocking votes, one +0,and five +1's this pup has passed. Thank you to everyone who contributed to this PUP, especially @richardfontana.
As a next step, we need to add the COMMITMENT file to all the right repos. If anyone wants to do that feel free and maybe reply on-thread, otherwise I'll do it when I'm back from PTO on Wed. https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0005.md On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Ina Panova <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > > > -------- > 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 Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Dana Walker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +0 >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Robin Chan <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected] >>>>>> > 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 < >>>>>>> [email protected]> 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-bugzilla/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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
