1 |
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> But there _are_ trivial cases (e.g., most of the init script issues, |
4 |
> bug 425702) where a simple ChangeLog entry would be enough for |
5 |
> traceability. |
6 |
|
7 |
I think something like that is best announced first, and then done if |
8 |
there is no issue. I have no issues with just moving forward with |
9 |
that one without maintainer involvement. Perhaps first just post a |
10 |
list of packages that plan to be touched in the announcement. |
11 |
|
12 |
>> I think it is best to at least ping the maintainer before switching a |
13 |
>> license. If anybody spots a license issue that they believe to be |
14 |
>> serious and they don't get a timely response from the maintainer, they |
15 |
>> should escalate it. I'd go a step further and request CCing the |
16 |
>> trustees from the start on any issue that involves contact from the |
17 |
>> copyright holder in any form. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> This can certainly be done. Be prepared for some bug spam, though. |
20 |
|
21 |
The key words are "serious" or "contact from the copyright holder." |
22 |
Bugs in these categories can't just sit around until a maintainer |
23 |
comes back from vacation - if we are notified that somebody believes |
24 |
we are possibly infringing copyright we need to take rapid action. I |
25 |
don't think that necessitates commit first and ask questions later, |
26 |
but it does need to start getting looked at by human beings that day. |
27 |
|
28 |
Also, my intent isn't to disenfranchise the licenses team. The |
29 |
Foundation is clearly accountable here, but insofar as the licenses |
30 |
team can stay on top of serious issues I would expect the Trustees to |
31 |
let them do their job. I just want the message to be that at the end |
32 |
of the day nobody should be able to argue that we didn't take what |
33 |
they believed to be a serious licensing concern seriously. |
34 |
|
35 |
Rich |