Oh, duh, it's the maturity model. Well, in context I found it confusing. -- Lefty
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com> wrote: > In CO10, what does "according to this model" mean? > > *CO10* > > The project has a well-known homepage that points to all the information >> required to operate according to this model. >> > > If it means the Apache model, do most project home pages currently point > to information about Apache operations? > > -- Lefty Leverenz > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Rob Vesse <rve...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote: >> > LC50: >> > >> > I think the LC50 is actually correct but could perhaps be phrased better >> > >> > My understanding was that the ASF owns the copyright for the collective >> > work of the project I.e. releases. As Benson notes contributors retain >> > copyright on their contributions but grant the ASF a perpetual license >> to >> > their contributions >> >> I think that the wording should be expanded to mention both aspects. >> >> > >> > QU30: >> > >> > Agreed, some projects may not do anything that is attack prone or are >> > likely only to be run such that any "security" is provided by whatever >> > runtime they use and the security of that runtime is well beyond the >> > purview of the project. >> > >> > Consensus building: >> > >> > Should there be a CS60 about the rare need for private discussions >> > >> > CS60: >> > >> > In rare situations (typically security, brand enforcement, legal and >> > personnel discussions) the project may need to first reach consensus in >> > private in which case the project should use their official private >> > communications channel such that these rare private discussions are >> > privately archived. The outcomes of such consensus should where >> possible >> > be discussed in public as soon as it is appropriate to do so. >> > >> > That isn't great wording but hopefully you get what I am trying to >> convey >> > - projects should rarely discuss in private and any discussions should >> > become public as soon as it is possible to do so >> > >> > Rob >> > >> > On 14/01/2015 15:33, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >>CD40: perhaps change 'previous version' to 'released version' >> >> >> >>CD50: the committer is not necessarily the author; someone might read >> >>this and not understand what it implies for committers committing >> >>contributions via all of the channels allowed for by the AL. One patch >> >>would be 'immediate provenance', another would be some more lengthier >> >>language about the process. >> >> >> >>LC20: do we need to explain what we mean by 'dependencies'? This has >> >>been a point of friction. Expand or footnote to the distinctions >> >>between essential and optional? >> >> >> >>LC50: the footnote seems wrong; the ASF does not own copyright, >> >>rather, the author retains, and grants the license. >> >> >> >>RE40: do you want to add an explicit statement that legal >> >>responsibility falls upon the head of the person who happened to run >> >>the build? >> >> >> >>QU20: Maybe we need to expands on 'secure'? Maybe this is too strong? >> >>What's wrong with building a product that is explicitly not intended >> >>for use attack-prone environments. >> >> >> >>QU40: Not all communities might agree. Some communities might see >> >>themselves as building fast-moving products. Some communities may lack >> >>the level of volunteer effort required to satisfy this. Does this make >> >>them immature, or just a group of volunteers with different >> >>priorities? >> >> >> >>IN10: I fear that a more detailed definition of independence is going >> >>to be called for here to avoid controversy. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >
