[VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
Hi,

This vote is to make this official [1] and move the guidelines to the website. The guidelines will be placed under the podling guides menu and linked to from the release section in the Incubator policy page [2]

The last sentence in that section will be changed to say this (where "here" links to the web version of the guidelines):

"Also, the Podling MAY choose to distribute approved releases through other channels by following the guidelines here."

This vote will be open for 72 hours or as long as is needed and IPMC votes are binding.

Please vote:
+1 [ ] Let's make this official
+0 [ ] Not sure this is needed
-1 [ ] No way because...

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Distribution+Guidelines
2. https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
Hi,

+1 (binding)

Assuming a positive outcome I’ll update the policy and add the new page once the vote is over.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Sheng Wu-2
+1 binding

Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108


Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> 于2020年7月6日周一 上午9:38写道:

> Hi,
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Assuming a positive outcome I’ll update the policy and add the new page
> once the vote is over.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Dave Fisher
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean
-1 (binding)

This lacks proper reference to existing Apache Policies and instead rewrites it. I think that this is outside the Incubator’s remit.

Regards,
Dave

> On Jul 5, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This vote is to make this official [1] and move the guidelines to the website. The guidelines will be placed under the podling guides menu and linked to from the release section in the Incubator policy page [2]
>
> The last sentence in that section will be changed to say this (where "here" links to the web version of the guidelines):
>
> "Also, the Podling MAY choose to distribute approved releases through other channels by following the guidelines here."
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours or as long as is needed and IPMC votes are binding.
>
> Please vote:
> +1 [ ] Let's make this official
> +0 [ ] Not sure this is needed
> -1 [ ] No way because...
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Distribution+Guidelines
> 2. https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
HI,

> This lacks proper reference to existing Apache Policies and instead rewrites it. I think that this is outside the Incubator’s remit.

How do you think it rewrites it? Nothing as far as I can see is added only clarified and put into context for different 3rd party platforms. Legal helped in making this original draft of this document and had no issues with it.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
Hi,

>> This lacks proper reference to existing Apache Policies and instead rewrites it. I think that this is outside the Incubator’s remit.

Can you also explain why you think that giving guidance to podling on how to make incubator releases inline with other ASF policies is outside the Incubator's remit?

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher
HI,

> This lacks proper reference to existing Apache Policies and instead rewrites it.

There no rewriting here. If you want reference to policies does this work for you?

"In addition to the Apache mirror system incubating projects may distribute artifacts on other platforms as long as they follow these general guidelines:
        • Releases must be placed in the Apache mirror system. [1]
        • Source releases and convenience binaries need to be made from IPMC and PPMC approved ASF releases.[2][3]
        • Where possible it should be pointed out that Apache project make source releases and convenience binaries are just a convenience for end user.[4]
        • Convenience binaries need to follow licensing policy and not include any category X licensed software. [5]
        • Convenience binaries should be signed and have hashes to verify their contents. [6]
        • Release candidates, nightlys and snapshots must not be advertised to the general public.[7]
        • Apache project branding and naming needs to be respected. [8]
        • It should be clear that the artifacts are under the ALv2 license.[9]
        • An incubating disclaimer must be clearly displayed where the artifacts are made available. [10]
        • All PPMC members must have access to administer the platform and the credentials recorded where any PPMC member can access them. [11]
        • Where possible these artifacts should not be referred to as releases.[12]
        • Where possible use platforms officially supported by Infra. [13]

All of the above SHOULD be followed. The podling can ask the IPMC for permission to do otherwise.”

Again this is to help podling comply with existing policy and does not rewrite it.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution#public-distribution
2. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
3. https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases
4. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages
5. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
6. https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution#public-distribution
7. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#publication
8 https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility#compliance
9 http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing
10 https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#disclaimers
11. https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html
12. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what
13. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r47051fbdb8ebd6dc9a6b4ef1f35aa9f51fb3fe6e1a08254022452164%40%3Cusers.infra.apache.org%3E (currently a PR on that policy to make this clearer)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Dave Fisher
Hi Justin,

To me the Foundation Dev Guidance comes first and it is currently buried within the Incubator policy and guidance.

A reference to http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases ought to be first from any incubator policy or guidance page. Problems with the dev page should be addressed. If the Foundation wide policy and guidance is weak then that should be fixed so that an Incubating podlings can use the proper information.

To me the only way that the Incubator policy guidance differs from ASF policy guidance is:

- Disclaimers
- IPMC vote on releases on general@
- Allowing non-Apache legacy releases in transition.

I agree that guidance would be helpful for distribution channels other than those Infrastructure supports, but that guidance should be at the Foundation level. Anything put out just for the Incubator may run into other issues in the future and could lead to confusion or conflict.

Regards,
Dave

> On Jul 11, 2020, at 7:55 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
>> This lacks proper reference to existing Apache Policies and instead rewrites it.
>
> There no rewriting here. If you want reference to policies does this work for you?
>
> "In addition to the Apache mirror system incubating projects may distribute artifacts on other platforms as long as they follow these general guidelines:
> • Releases must be placed in the Apache mirror system. [1]
> • Source releases and convenience binaries need to be made from IPMC and PPMC approved ASF releases.[2][3]
> • Where possible it should be pointed out that Apache project make source releases and convenience binaries are just a convenience for end user.[4]
> • Convenience binaries need to follow licensing policy and not include any category X licensed software. [5]
> • Convenience binaries should be signed and have hashes to verify their contents. [6]
> • Release candidates, nightlys and snapshots must not be advertised to the general public.[7]
> • Apache project branding and naming needs to be respected. [8]
> • It should be clear that the artifacts are under the ALv2 license.[9]
> • An incubating disclaimer must be clearly displayed where the artifacts are made available. [10]
> • All PPMC members must have access to administer the platform and the credentials recorded where any PPMC member can access them. [11]
> • Where possible these artifacts should not be referred to as releases.[12]
> • Where possible use platforms officially supported by Infra. [13]
>
> All of the above SHOULD be followed. The podling can ask the IPMC for permission to do otherwise.”
>
> Again this is to help podling comply with existing policy and does not rewrite it.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution#public-distribution
> 2. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
> 3. https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases
> 4. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages
> 5. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> 6. https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution#public-distribution
> 7. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#publication
> 8 https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility#compliance
> 9 http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing
> 10 https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#disclaimers
> 11. https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html
> 12. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what
> 13. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r47051fbdb8ebd6dc9a6b4ef1f35aa9f51fb3fe6e1a08254022452164%40%3Cusers.infra.apache.org%3E (currently a PR on that policy to make this clearer)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
Hi,

> A reference to http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases ought to be first from any incubator policy or guidance page. Problems with the dev page should be addressed. If the Foundation wide policy and guidance is weak then that should be fixed so that an Incubating podlings can use the proper information.

These guidelines are about distribution of releases not making releases. The incubator already has guidelines about releases [1] and it does reference http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases at the top. This information does not replace that. But yes referencing [2] (ASF distribution policy) is a good idea.

> To me the only way that the Incubator policy guidance differs from ASF policy guidance is:
>
> - Disclaimers
> - IPMC vote on releases on general@
> - Allowing non-Apache legacy releases in transition.

Also:
- How PPMC member are elected
- How press announced can be made
- Branding and trademark

And guidance on how to follow other ASF policies. Mentors and IPMC members do that all the time. This document helps in that regard and there is nothing in this document that isn’t in policy elsewhere.

> I agree that guidance would be helpful for distribution channels other than those Infrastructure supports, but that guidance should be at the Foundation level.

The Incubator has waited years for something to happen, the current draft policy doesn’t address this, nor is it our remit to fix that policy. Do we just postpone all project graduations that use other methods of distribution while we wait? Or prohibit them altogether? Or do we provide best practice guidances that has input from the IPMC, legal and trademarks and has been discussed on and off for over a year?

Currently we have more than one podling that are not following ASF policy on releases and distribution. If they were pointed to and followed this document they would have be in compliance.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html
2. https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Sheng Zha
Hi Justin,

While I appreciate your efforts in putting together the guidelines, your reply seems to indicate
that this guideline is not making new rules, which is apparently false. Specifically, you wrote:

> Nothing as far as I can see is added only clarified and put into context for different 3rd party
> platforms.

This description suggests that the nature of this guideline is the interpretation of the
existing Apache policies in the context of distribution on third-party platform. Personally,
I believe that interpretation is still making new rules. After all, statutory interpretation is one
of the main ways for making laws in common law legal system.

As a podling PPMC member, my main concern from the disagreement in this thread is that we may end up
seeing podlings being bound by additional rules that the top-level projects are not bound to. My
preference on how things should unfold, as I mentioned in the discussion thread, is still to see the consensus built in the overall Apache
policies that binds everyone, not just the podlings.

Best regards,
Sheng


On 2020/07/12 22:35:34, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > A reference to http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases ought to be first from any incubator policy or guidance page. Problems with the dev page should be addressed. If the Foundation wide policy and guidance is weak then that should be fixed so that an Incubating podlings can use the proper information.
>
> These guidelines are about distribution of releases not making releases. The incubator already has guidelines about releases [1] and it does reference http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases at the top. This information does not replace that. But yes referencing [2] (ASF distribution policy) is a good idea.
>
> > To me the only way that the Incubator policy guidance differs from ASF policy guidance is:
> >
> > - Disclaimers
> > - IPMC vote on releases on general@
> > - Allowing non-Apache legacy releases in transition.
>
> Also:
> - How PPMC member are elected
> - How press announced can be made
> - Branding and trademark
>
> And guidance on how to follow other ASF policies. Mentors and IPMC members do that all the time. This document helps in that regard and there is nothing in this document that isn’t in policy elsewhere.
>
> > I agree that guidance would be helpful for distribution channels other than those Infrastructure supports, but that guidance should be at the Foundation level.
>
> The Incubator has waited years for something to happen, the current draft policy doesn’t address this, nor is it our remit to fix that policy. Do we just postpone all project graduations that use other methods of distribution while we wait? Or prohibit them altogether? Or do we provide best practice guidances that has input from the IPMC, legal and trademarks and has been discussed on and off for over a year?
>
> Currently we have more than one podling that are not following ASF policy on releases and distribution. If they were pointed to and followed this document they would have be in compliance.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html
> 2. https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
Hi,

> This description suggests that the nature of this guideline is the interpretation of the
> existing Apache policies in the context of distribution on third-party platform.

That is correct.

> Personally, I believe that interpretation is still making new rules.

Please point to one of these new rules. Everything in come from existing ASF policy put into context for these platforms. This is advice to help projects comply with policy. Some podlings are currently not doing that. How else would you suggest we fix that?

> As a podling PPMC member, my main concern from the disagreement in this thread is that we may end up
> seeing podlings being bound by additional rules that the top-level projects are not bound to.

Well another alternative I see is to ban the use of all alternative channels until we do have ASF policy in place for their use. I don’t think projects would be happy with that.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Sheng Zha
> > Personally, I believe that interpretation is still making new rules.
> Please point to one of these new rules.

Again, in my opinion, the act of interpretation of existing rules in a new context is making new rules. Thus, all the rules in the guidelines are new rules.

> > As a podling PPMC member, my main concern from the disagreement in this thread is that we may end up
> > seeing podlings being bound by additional rules that the top-level projects are not bound to.
> Well another alternative I see is to ban the use of all alternative channels until we do have ASF policy in place for their use. I don’t think projects would be happy with that.

I'm not sure whether that would be the only alternative. If this is indeed the case, I think it would be extremely concerning if the incubator is to ban all podlings from using non-ASF distribution channels. It would be an act that forces podlings that rely on non-ASF distribution channels to retire, making the name "incubator" rather insincere to them, if not ironic.

Best,
Sheng

On 2020/07/13 05:38:16, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > This description suggests that the nature of this guideline is the interpretation of the
> > existing Apache policies in the context of distribution on third-party platform.
>
> That is correct.
>
> > Personally, I believe that interpretation is still making new rules.
>
> Please point to one of these new rules. Everything in come from existing ASF policy put into context for these platforms. This is advice to help projects comply with policy. Some podlings are currently not doing that. How else would you suggest we fix that?
>
> > As a podling PPMC member, my main concern from the disagreement in this thread is that we may end up
> > seeing podlings being bound by additional rules that the top-level projects are not bound to.
>
> Well another alternative I see is to ban the use of all alternative channels until we do have ASF policy in place for their use. I don’t think projects would be happy with that.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
Hi,

> Again, in my opinion, the act of interpretation of existing rules in a new context is making new rules. Thus, all the rules in the guidelines are new rules.

If you see it that way , then every single project (both projects in the incubator and TLPs) makes new rules when they interpretative ASF policies for themselves. Why should the Incubator (itself a TLP) be prohibited from doing that?

> I'm not sure whether that would be the only alternative.

So what would you suggest as an alternative?

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Sheng Zha
> So what would you suggest as an alternative?

As I've been consistently suggesting in the discussion thread and in this thread, I hope that ASF could move forward together on the distribution guidelines, and the consensus should bind all projects, TLP and podlings alike. Taking the shortcut for incubator to move forward alone makes it unfair to the podlings.

Best,
Sheng

On 2020/07/13 06:10:48, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Again, in my opinion, the act of interpretation of existing rules in a new context is making new rules. Thus, all the rules in the guidelines are new rules.
>
> If you see it that way , then every single project (both projects in the incubator and TLPs) makes new rules when they interpretative ASF policies for themselves. Why should the Incubator (itself a TLP) be prohibited from doing that?
>
> > I'm not sure whether that would be the only alternative.
>
> So what would you suggest as an alternative?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
Hi,

How is providing guidance on ASF policy to podlings unfair if it makes their life easier? Again these guidelines add nothing that a TLP shouldn’t already be doing. They may do it in a slightly different way, and that’s OK and also allowed by these guidelines.

Put it this way without that guidance some podlings will come to graduation, and it will not be granted as they are not complying with ASF policy. Or we have the situation when the board points out to the Incubator that a podling is not following ASF policy. Or podlings may leave the Incubator because they didn’t understand the requirements of those policies. Or a podling would be removed from the Incubator for not following ASF policy.

Yes, we could wait until the ASF come up with a policy (and even help them create it), that may take years. Meanwhile, the above issues will keep occurring.

An alternative to wait and see is to come up with some guidelines that give good advice (and that legal and trademarks have looked at) and then adjust as needed when the ASF does come up with a policy for these platforms.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Sheng Zha-2
> Put it this way without that guidance some podlings will come to graduation, and it will not be granted as they are not complying with ASF policy. Or we have the situation when the board points out to the Incubator that a podling is not following ASF policy. Or podlings may leave the Incubator because they didn’t understand the requirements of those policies. Or a podling would be removed from the Incubator for not following ASF policy.

I think all of these situations can occur with or without the new incubator policy. The fact that this vote introduces a new policy means that podlings will have to comply with the union of the ASF policies and this additional incubator policy. This can only be more restrictive than the original ASF policies.

> Again these guidelines add nothing that a TLP shouldn’t already be doing.
> Yes, we could wait until the ASF come up with a policy (and even help them create it), that may take years.


If there’s consensus on the guideline among the TLPs and everyone agrees with your assessment, why would it take ASF years to reach consensus on them?

Best,
Sheng
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
Hi,

> I think all of these situations can occur with or without the new incubator policy.

It possibles yes, but they would be less likely to occur.

> his can only be more restrictive than the original ASF policies.

These are not more restrictive than current policy. I really don’t understand why you think that they are. Please point out where that is the case and I’ll correct it.

> If there’s consensus on the guideline among the TLPs

There probably is not consensus among TLP on this and different projects will do it in different ways. That is fine as long as it complies, but working that does can be difficult.  Some TLP projects may not be complying with policy and not be aware of it, which may become a future issue. Even worse podlings may copy them rather that actually reading and understanding ASF policy or the intent behind it.

This document allows for a variety of interpretation - "All of the above SHOULD be followed. The podling can ask the IPMC for permission to do otherwise.” Note the use of the word SHOULD rather than MUST. SHOULD means unless you have a good reason to do otherwise.

> and everyone agrees with your assessment, why would it take ASF years to reach consensus on them?

It taken years to get to this point and these issues and the like have been discussed for over a decade without resolution and that’s why policy don’t exist. The current board is trying to address that but it’s likely to be a slow process.

The fact that once again this discussion has got derailed leaves me with very little hope that this will get resolved. A large amount of work has been put into this by many people, and it's unfortunate that these objections were brought up so late in the process.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Paul King
My reading of the wording is that there is now more wiggle room for
podlings rather than more restrictions.

Cheers, Paul.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 5:51 PM Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I think all of these situations can occur with or without the new
> incubator policy.
>
> It possibles yes, but they would be less likely to occur.
>
> > his can only be more restrictive than the original ASF policies.
>
> These are not more restrictive than current policy. I really don’t
> understand why you think that they are. Please point out where that is the
> case and I’ll correct it.
>
> > If there’s consensus on the guideline among the TLPs
>
> There probably is not consensus among TLP on this and different projects
> will do it in different ways. That is fine as long as it complies, but
> working that does can be difficult.  Some TLP projects may not be complying
> with policy and not be aware of it, which may become a future issue. Even
> worse podlings may copy them rather that actually reading and understanding
> ASF policy or the intent behind it.
>
> This document allows for a variety of interpretation - "All of the above
> SHOULD be followed. The podling can ask the IPMC for permission to do
> otherwise.” Note the use of the word SHOULD rather than MUST. SHOULD means
> unless you have a good reason to do otherwise.
>
> > and everyone agrees with your assessment, why would it take ASF years to
> reach consensus on them?
>
> It taken years to get to this point and these issues and the like have
> been discussed for over a decade without resolution and that’s why policy
> don’t exist. The current board is trying to address that but it’s likely to
> be a slow process.
>
> The fact that once again this discussion has got derailed leaves me with
> very little hope that this will get resolved. A large amount of work has
> been put into this by many people, and it's unfortunate that these
> objections were brought up so late in the process.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Justin Mclean
Hi,

So technically this votes passes with 2 +1 votes and a single -1 vote. A -1 vote on procedural matters is not a veto [1], but given the small number of votes I’m hesitant to post a result. Does anyone else want to vote?

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Distribution guidelines for platforms

Roman Shaposhnik
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 4:23 PM Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> So technically this votes passes with 2 +1 votes and a single -1 vote. A -1 vote on procedural matters is not a veto [1], but given the small number of votes I’m hesitant to post a result. Does anyone else want to vote?

I suggest let it simmer for a little while (personally I need a day or
two to catch up with all the threads).

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12