But, IMO, the reason the question went to VP Legal is that it doesn't really
matter what the IPMC thinks if their "business decision" will have an impact on
the "Legal Shield" and the insurance premiums that go with it. So I think the
question got lost on legal-discuss. The "space of options" should probably be
constrained by the "Legal Shield".
What kinds of policy violations truly affect the legal shield if the
non-compliance:
1) is actually released
2) released but noted in RELEASE_NOTES or DISCLAIMER
3) released but not corrected in the next release
Ted, Roy, Hen, seem to say that only "no rights to distribute" and "CatX"
should not be released by TLPs but "CatX" should be ok for podlings. My
takeaway from Roman is that all policy non-compliance issues are release
breakers and Incubator should either be granted special status or not. But I'd
like to see the first question be answered so we can understand how special the
Incubator status would have to be. How different would it be from TLP releases
and what risks to the foundation would that pose and could a DISCLAIMER or
other means mitigate that risk? Without knowing how the Legal Shield works, it
is hard to know what the options truly are.
HTH,
-Alex
On 6/23/19, 10:43 PM, "Davor Bonaci" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:04 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree. I see a number of people who think that podling releases are
> TLP-level releases from the Incubator itself. I see people wanting
> structure/policy/rules to ensure these TLP releases are done properly. And
> that some want to "fix a few things" to make it easier for podlings to
make
> these releases.
>
Perhaps you are right, but it is not necessary to debate it. (The
'disagreement' is about what other people think; we can let them speak up
and/or measure consensus or lack thereof in the usual ways.)
The balls rolls forward by understanding the space of options, and then
discussing it. (... the first part of which is happening on other threads.)
