On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > >> Returning to this topic after an intermission... >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> ...As one of the active developers I would have a serious problem if we as >>>> project couldn't provide binary releases for our users. And I thought >>>> the ASF is a serious enough institution that can ensure to deliver >>>> binaries of these very popular end user oriented software and can of >>>> course protect the very valuable brand OpenOffice that the ASF now owns >>>> as well... >>> >>> As has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, at the >>> moment ASF releases consist of source code, not binaries. >> >> My impression from this discussion is that many podling contributors are >> dismayed by this policy, and that there is an element within the PPMC which >> remains convinced that it is actually up to individual PMCs within the ASF to >> set policy as to whether binaries are official or not. > > It is a consequence of 10 years of official openoffice.org binary releases > from both Sun and Oracle. > > It is a consequence of a large market share. >
Or stated in less commercial terms, the vast amount of public good that comes from this project. See: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html >> >>> OTOH I don't think anybody said the ASF will never allow projects to >>> distribute binaries - but people who want to do that need to get >>> together (*) and come up with a proposal that's compatible with the >>> ASF's goals and constraints, so that a clear policy can be set. >> >> I'm concerned that such an effort may not be completed, and that once the >> podling graduates, AOO binaries will once again be advertised as official, >> placing the project in conflict with ASF-wide policy. It may be that some >> within the newly formed PMC will speak out in favor of the ASF status quo, >> but >> as their position will likely be inexpedient and unpopular, it may be >> difficult to prevail. > >> Of course I don't know how things will play out, but it seems to me that >> reactions from podling contributors have ranged from discouraged to skeptical >> to antagonistic and that there is limited enthusisasm for working within the >> ASF >> on this matter. >> >> Gaming out this pessimistic scenario, what would it look like if the Board >> were forced to clamp down on a rebellious AOO PMC to enforce ASF policy >> regarding binary releases? > >> If we believe that we are adequately prepared for such circumstances, then I >> think that's good enough and that fully resolving the issue of binary >> releases prior to AOO's graduation is not required. > > One way to help assure proper policy would be to insist that there are > several Apache Members on the future PMC. > Or if someone who cared sufficiently about this policy area took ownership and proposed a wording of the policy, either as a Board resolution, or on legal-discuss, and had that policy approved and recorded via the ordinary means. Right now is is unfair to say that I, or anyone else in the podling, is "rebellious" or opposes ASF Policy in this area, since no one seems to be able to say what the policy actually is, in specific and actionable terms, and why they think AOO podling is or is not in compliance. I can give the IPMC a hand here, if my point is too obscure. A policy might look like this: Resolved: An Apache project's release consists of a canonical source artifact, voted on and approved by the PMC. A PMC can also distribute additional, non-source artifacts, including documentation, binaries, samples, etc., that are provided for the convenience of the user. These non-source artifacts must must be buildable from the canonical source artifact. Additional 3rd party libraries may be included solely in compliance with license policies defined by Apache Legal Affairs. Additionally the non-source artifacts (or the PMC) must ____________ and must not _________________. Fill in the blanks, get approval via normal procedures, and you have something resembling a policy. Regards, -Rob > As of now it looks like Jim and I are the only ones on the prospective PMC. > That's not enough. I'm going to need a vacation from AOO soon. > > Regards, > Dave > >> > > >> >> >> Marvin Humphrey >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
