[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Training - Navigating the ASF Incubator Process 1.0 (incubating)
Hi, The vote to release Apache Training - Navigating the ASF Incubator Process 1.0 (incubating) passes with 6 +1 bidding votes and no -1 votes. +1 Justin Mclean +1 Lars Francke +1 Bertrand Delacretaz +1 David Meikle +1 Furkan Kamaci +1 Ted Liu Vote thread can be found here [1]. Thanks to everyone who took the time to look at the release and vote. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the content or perhaps wants to work on translating it into another language, the training PMC would like to hear from you. Thanks, Justin 1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0bbe1b71d6c3d6bfbd1fe19a03d45dc3fbebffa711ebe9205fc91e10@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
回复：Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Training - Navigating the ASF Incubator Process 1.0 (incubating)
+1 to release. Best regards, Ted Liu, ASF Member, Incubator PMC Member 2019 年 6 月 12 日周三 2:32，Furkan KAMACI 写道： Hi, +1 to release! Kind Regards, Furkan KAMACI On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:26 PM Dave Meikle wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 at 04:10, Justin Mclean > wrote: > > > The source artefact, including signatures and hashes can be found at: > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/training/ApacheWay/NavigatingASFIncubation/1.0_rc2/ > > < > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/training/ApacheWay/NavigatingASFIncubation/1.0_rc2/ > > > > > > > The tag to be voted upon is NavigatingASFIncubation1.0_rc2: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-training/tree/NavigatingASFIncubation1.0_rc2 > > < > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-training/tree/NavigatingASFIncubation1.0_rc2 > > > > > The release hash is b719c7d5cb96aee0e213b68a5e758809fc02e619 > > > > +1 to releasing this package. > > Cheers, > Dave >
Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases
Alex, Many of the apparently minor issues actually bear on the legality and restriction of use issues. For instance, some licenses *require* attribution. Distribution of code with that requirement that has no attribution is not allowed under the license. It may be that a podling would be allowed to squeak out a release or two with a disclaimer that the release might be defective, but it really should be remedied. But I think that the real issue you are highlighting is that there are many ways to comply with the Apache intent. Once upon a time, the Incubator tried to give podlings all the flexibility possible in complying. To do this required that the podlings be educated in a very hazy, somewhat self-contradictory and only vaguely documented philosophy. That proved essentially unworkable. The current Incubator approach is to define one particular way to proceed that fits with the philosophy. This has at least a chance of being documented. But it is important for the IPMC to never forget that it is only one way and variations will probably work almost as well. It is also really important to remember that trying to express that potential flexibility is potentially a disastrous approach in terms of helping projects get to TLP easily and effectively. Even just having long discussions about what can work is likely to cause huge amounts of confusion. On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:20 PM Alex Harui wrote: > The "legal shield" has been brought up by others as the reason for being > so strict on policy compliance, hence my questions. > > My takeaway from your responses is that the key factors are: > 1) legal right to distribute. > 2) no downstream limitations on field of use. > > which I agree with and see no reason to change it. However, that implies > that other policy compliance issues (missing source headers, > not-quite-right handling of LICENSE and maybe NOTICE) are not showstoppers > and can be addressed in a future release, and that would save time not only > for podlings, but for TLPs as well. > > Then the main decision point for this thread is whether to allow podlings > more slack on #2 given their artifacts are appropriately labelled and > disclaimed. > > Could an incentive be offered to podlings that if their release complies > with both #1 and #2 that they can remove the -incubating label when copying > the artifacts to dist.a.o? > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 6/10/19, 11:13 AM, "Ted Dunning" wrote: > > The content of a release and the downstream limitations on field of > use are > not a matter of legal shield. It has always been the case that the > fundamental promise of Apache has been that Apache software is easy and > safe to adopt and use. > > Easy and safe meaning that you won't have nasty surprises like somebody > suing you for "being evil" or, worse, having your own lawyers veto a > critical release because a dependency of a dependency is GPL licensed > or is > restricted from being used in anything that competes with smart > plumbing > accessories. > > Getting the foundation to relax that attitude of no downstream > restrictions > is going to be nearly impossible. > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Alex Harui > wrote: > > > There's been a lot of discussion on relaxing requirements, but I > don't > > recall any long-time ASF person explaining how fragile or durable the > > legal-shield and the insurance rates for it are. > > > > ... > > > > Unless someone can explain why that would ruin the legal-shield or > raise > > insurance rates, I think that would save lots of community time > getting > > releases out. Otherwise, we might be expending precious energy > > overzealously trying to protect a legal-shield that doesn't need > that level > > of protection. > > > > Does anybody truly know what will and will not ruin the > legal-shield? I > > have to imagine that releases have been shipped by the ASF and later > found > > to be non-compliant with policy and that didn't ruin the legal > shield or > > raise insurance rates. > > > > >
Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases
Hi, > My takeaway from your responses is that the key factors are: > 1) legal right to distribute. > 2) no downstream limitations on field of use. I think most people have seen saying that are “legal”, that would be more restrictive that what the IPMC currently practices. > which I agree with and see no reason to change it. However, that implies > that other policy compliance issues (missing source headers, not-quite-right > handling of LICENSE and maybe NOTICE) are not showstoppers Well a lot of LICENSE issues fall into above categories. > and can be addressed in a future release, and that would save time not only > for podlings, but for TLPs as well. The incubator has no remit over TLPs, that is a conversation for another list. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk API Gateway (v0.10.0-incubating, rc2)
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 22:32, Dave Grove wrote: > > > > On 2019/06/08 03:42:43, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > > > BTW I think this points out one of the dangers of possible over reliance of > > using scripts to check releases. In case the issue is minor but sometimes > > it won’t be. > > Yes. Point taken. The two MIT-licensed files are in git exactly where the > NOTICE file says they are, but the subdirectory they were in was excluded > from the tar command. The files are only needed for testing, so it doesn't > make the release unusable, but excluding them is not what should have > happened. Perhaps the script should check that the contents of the repo tag agree with the contents of the source bundle. This would catch both missing and spurious files, as well as unwarranted changes. > --dave > > > - > 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
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk API Gateway (v0.10.0-incubating, rc2)
On 2019/06/08 03:42:43, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > BTW I think this points out one of the dangers of possible over reliance of > using scripts to check releases. In case the issue is minor but sometimes it > won’t be. Yes. Point taken. The two MIT-licensed files are in git exactly where the NOTICE file says they are, but the subdirectory they were in was excluded from the tar command. The files are only needed for testing, so it doesn't make the release unusable, but excluding them is not what should have happened. --dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWhisk API Gateway (v0.10.0-incubating, rc2)
This vote is now closed. It passed with 3 binding +1 votes (Krzysztof Sobkowiak, Justin Mclean, and Bertrand Delacretaz) and no other votes cast. Thanks for all who participated; we will proceed with releasing this software. --dave On 2019/06/03 17:42:44, "David P Grove" wrote: > > > Dear IPMC members, > > The OpenWhisk podling has voted to release Apache OpenWhisk API Gateway > (v0.10.0-incubating, rc2) with 5 +1 votes and no other votes cast per the > vote thread at [1]. There were no IPMC member votes cast on that thread. > > We now ask IPMC members to review this release candidate and vote > accordingly. Note that this is an improved version of the proposed release > we brought to you on May 23rd in [2]. > > thanks, > > --dave > > > This is a call to vote on releasing version 0.10.0-incubating release > candidate rc2 of the following project module with artifacts built from the > Git repositories and commit IDs listed below. > > * OpenWhisk API Gateway: a737552c > https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-apigateway/commits/a737552c > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.10.0-incubating-rc2/openwhisk-apigateway-0.10.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.10.0-incubating-rc2/openwhisk-apigateway-0.10.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.asc > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/openwhisk/apache-openwhisk-0.10.0-incubating-rc2/openwhisk-apigateway-0.10.0-incubating-sources.tar.gz.sha512 > > This release is comprised of source code distribution only. > > You can use this UNIX script to download the release and verify the > checklist below: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-openwhisk-release.git;a=blob_plain;f=tools/rcverify.sh;hb=HEAD > > Usage: > curl -s > "https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-openwhisk-release.git;a=blob_plain;f=tools/rcverify.sh;hb=HEAD"; > -o rcverify.sh > chmod +x rcverify.sh > rcverify.sh openwhisk-apigateway 'OpenWhisk API Gateway' 0.10.0-incubating > rc2 > > Please vote to approve this release: > > [ ] +1 Approve the release > [ ] 0 Don't care > [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... > > Release verification checklist for reference: > [ ] Download links are valid. > [ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. > [ ] DISCLAIMER is included. > [ ] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current > release. > [ ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each OpenWhisk repository. > [ ] All files have license headers as specified by OpenWhisk project > policy [3]. > [ ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive. > > This majority vote is open for at least 72 hours. > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3f4f02baa2708da4868c79ed6bcb0241570f730dc14af3d1b4c295cf@%3Cdev.openwhisk.apache.org%3E > [2] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d43cf440e4d90770160e969fecf2957644c47d7c14c5192eacde9cf0@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E > [3] > https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-release/blob/master/docs/license_compliance.md > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases
The "legal shield" has been brought up by others as the reason for being so strict on policy compliance, hence my questions. My takeaway from your responses is that the key factors are: 1) legal right to distribute. 2) no downstream limitations on field of use. which I agree with and see no reason to change it. However, that implies that other policy compliance issues (missing source headers, not-quite-right handling of LICENSE and maybe NOTICE) are not showstoppers and can be addressed in a future release, and that would save time not only for podlings, but for TLPs as well. Then the main decision point for this thread is whether to allow podlings more slack on #2 given their artifacts are appropriately labelled and disclaimed. Could an incentive be offered to podlings that if their release complies with both #1 and #2 that they can remove the -incubating label when copying the artifacts to dist.a.o? Thanks, -Alex On 6/10/19, 11:13 AM, "Ted Dunning" wrote: The content of a release and the downstream limitations on field of use are not a matter of legal shield. It has always been the case that the fundamental promise of Apache has been that Apache software is easy and safe to adopt and use. Easy and safe meaning that you won't have nasty surprises like somebody suing you for "being evil" or, worse, having your own lawyers veto a critical release because a dependency of a dependency is GPL licensed or is restricted from being used in anything that competes with smart plumbing accessories. Getting the foundation to relax that attitude of no downstream restrictions is going to be nearly impossible. On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Alex Harui wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion on relaxing requirements, but I don't > recall any long-time ASF person explaining how fragile or durable the > legal-shield and the insurance rates for it are. > > ... > > Unless someone can explain why that would ruin the legal-shield or raise > insurance rates, I think that would save lots of community time getting > releases out. Otherwise, we might be expending precious energy > overzealously trying to protect a legal-shield that doesn't need that level > of protection. > > Does anybody truly know what will and will not ruin the legal-shield? I > have to imagine that releases have been shipped by the ASF and later found > to be non-compliant with policy and that didn't ruin the legal shield or > raise insurance rates. >
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Training - Navigating the ASF Incubator Process 1.0 (incubating)
Hi, +1 to release! Kind Regards, Furkan KAMACI On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:26 PM Dave Meikle wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 at 04:10, Justin Mclean > wrote: > > > The source artefact, including signatures and hashes can be found at: > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/training/ApacheWay/NavigatingASFIncubation/1.0_rc2/ > > < > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/training/ApacheWay/NavigatingASFIncubation/1.0_rc2/ > > > > > > > The tag to be voted upon is NavigatingASFIncubation1.0_rc2: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-training/tree/NavigatingASFIncubation1.0_rc2 > > < > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-training/tree/NavigatingASFIncubation1.0_rc2 > > > > > The release hash is b719c7d5cb96aee0e213b68a5e758809fc02e619 > > > > +1 to releasing this package. > > Cheers, > Dave >
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Training - Navigating the ASF Incubator Process 1.0 (incubating)
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 at 04:10, Justin Mclean wrote: > The source artefact, including signatures and hashes can be found at: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/training/ApacheWay/NavigatingASFIncubation/1.0_rc2/ > < > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/training/ApacheWay/NavigatingASFIncubation/1.0_rc2/ > > > > The tag to be voted upon is NavigatingASFIncubation1.0_rc2: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-training/tree/NavigatingASFIncubation1.0_rc2 > < > https://github.com/apache/incubator-training/tree/NavigatingASFIncubation1.0_rc2 > > > The release hash is b719c7d5cb96aee0e213b68a5e758809fc02e619 > +1 to releasing this package. Cheers, Dave
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Training - Navigating the ASF Incubator Process 1.0 (incubating)
Hi, > +1 for the release of Thanks for your vote. > As a sidenote I'm surprised that that content doesn't seem to be > published at http://training.apache.org/ - but that's not a question > for the Incubator PMC. Well we cannot publish it until it’s released - hence this vote :-) Although we are still working out exactly how we deal with stuff like this. Thanks again, Justin Mclean - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Training - Navigating the ASF Incubator Process 1.0 (incubating)
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 5:10 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > ...We have 2 IPMC votes, and only require one more +1 IPMC vote +1 for the release of SHA512(apache-training-navigating-ASF-incubation-1.0-incubating.tar.gz)= b67d311cb553f5aec784187f65e85e173da276fea13d9a810e8e340ff11af77afb79e1a8accc74b66c72ae2ce8b40853c4e72b6025f880a968a93ea78e6eecc7 As a sidenote I'm surprised that that content doesn't seem to be published at http://training.apache.org/ - but that's not a question for the Incubator PMC. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Re: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenWhisk graduation to Top Level Project
Hi, > Thanks. The draft at [1] is quite helpful. I've searched for something > like that multiple times over the last year and never found it. Is this > new or is my search karma not good ;) It was discussed at length on this list about 6 month ago (think), people from the legal committee were involved, so your mentors should been aware of it and the several legal issues that have been raised about docker images. Searching legal JIRAs will often turn up something and there are a few issues there about docker and releases outside the ASF that might be of help > OpenWhisk has work to do to come into compliance wrt dockerhub. That page gives one way of doing it, just be aware that doesn’t mean there are not other ways that are also fine, you might be able to come up with your own. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
