On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 4:11 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > I agree with other respondents that 'serious' seems bad here. To me the > > serious ones are the only ones they can't release with. > > So we just continue as is then? You have any suggests to what we change? > I don't think we're using the same word meanings. I think that serious = release blocker; but I equally think there are very few items that are serious. > > > ReleaseBlocking: Has a LICENSE. Legally permitted to release and > complies > > with the license via some mechanism. > > We currently allow releases that are not strictly legal. This would be a > step backwards. > > I'd love to hear some examples. I suspect they are all legal. Speculating hypothetically: * We should never make a release that we know there is some content in that we explicitly do not have permission to publish. * We should never make a release that we know contains content that is criminal (for whatever that would mean). Other than that... I'm not sure what else would come under 'all legal' label. > > GraduationBlocking: Everything else; including complying with the > license > > via our preferred mechanism (i.e. we might want the MIT license text in > our > > LICENSE file, but would accept it being in the source header of the files > > themselves). > > We currently allow podlings to graduate with some issues as longs as the > PPMC is dealing with them. This would be a step backwards. > > Yeah. We need a third category for "MehNotBlockingPleaseFix". > > I don't see a need to go to the board on this :) > > If we don’t want to change anything - sure there's no need to go to the > board. > I'd definitely like to see change. My feeling is that there's a lot we can make that falls comfortably within the scope of the Incubator PMC. IIRC the release policies came out of the Incubator; I don't recall there being a request for the board to ratify them, but I might be failing to remember something a decade+ ago :) > > >> issues have been fixed. The IPMC will add additional information to the > > incubator DISCLAIMER to cover that podling release may not abide by all > > > > The IPMC? That sounds like a people scaling problem. The podling > committee > > should handle it. > > I mean just changing this page [1] , podlings can update their own > disclaimers. > Gotya :) > > > "This release still has the following issues that will need to be > resolved > > before the Foo Project can graduate to an Apache vetted Top Level > Project” > > What about unknown issues? > By that are you suggesting that the text implies a guarantee that those are the only issues? (Otherwise I'm off into philosophy of whether the unknown can exist when the only test makes it known :) ). "The Foo Project have currently identified the following issues that will need to be resolved before the project can graduate to an Apache vetted Top Level Project” Any better? > > Are the board lawyers? :) Until you have a well-defined list, I doubt > > anything could be confirmed. I'd go with: "Conceptually what you > describe > > could lead to a situation where a PPMC releases a project fully compliant > > with the ASF's expectations. “ > > I assume you mean “not fully compliant”? > Nope. I was being defensive in my broad statements. For the given question; sure, someone might manage a perfect release someday :) Hen
