On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:27 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > >... > > > Hi, > > > > > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for > > each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal > > considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a > > > Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is > there for.
That's exactly the direction I personally would like this to go into. > > Which while I don’t disagree with, again I ask how can a PMC (i.e the > > incubator) make releases that are not in line with policy? Current advice > > seems that the board would not grant a blanket exception like to the IPMC > > > I don't recall that advice. In fact, Roman seemed to indicate Legal would > be just fine with that. This is correct. Provided we *do* explicitly acknowledge that special status of the Incubator. This acknowledgement will basically put podling source code releases at the same level we have convenience binary releases. Which is: they are NOT acts of the foundation. > IMO, stop being pessimistic. Move forward with change to stop the gating, > and let podlings do their releases without all the IPMC burden. > > >... > > > > Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to > > provide legal oversight > > > > That may be the original thought, but historical threads bring up legal > > oversight very very early on. (I posted one from 2004 the other day). > > Hopefully someone can explain this history? > > > > Who cares? Red herring. We are where we are. Move forward from here. +1000! Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
