On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 9:58 PM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Greg, > > > On Mar 3, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Acts of the Foundation require specific oversight of the IPMC. To > establish > > that "act", we have the (3) +1 vote rule of IPMC members. The IPMC cannot > > delegate this power further, as each IPMC member is specifically > empowered > > by the Board. So PPMC members cannot act for the Foundation since they > > haven't been empowered by the Board. > > > > Again, the above is premised on *needing* that particular empowerment. If > > podling releases are no longer required to be official, then quite a bit > > can be changed. > > > I believe that this would be a disaster. I choose this word carefully. > > In your proposal, would podlings' bad releases use the official Apache > distribution mechanisms? dist.apache.org, signatures, checksums and the > mirror systems and KEYS and such? > No idea. I believe that a lot of the current issue, bureaucracy, and drive-by are related making "releases" ASF-compliant. Yet I seem to recall a time when these releases could have mistakes. These are podlings, after all. It is expected. It will get fixed next time. So I think a major problem to solve is "making non-official releases", and to your point: how to differentiate those from "official releases". Cheers, -g
