Re: release issues

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 02:15:51PM -0500, kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us wrote:
> Here are some of the issues that I see coming up with respect to
> putting together releases:

Any legal framework for some of these will not do us any good.  The
foundation has no "power" to enforce it's decision.

> 1.  How is it decided what packages are to be included in a release?

Consensus of the board.  (This of course means that it's also something
that the maintainers will agree with, otherwise it's a useless decision)

> 2.  How is it decided what version of a package is to be included in a 
> release?

Consensus of the board.  (Same as above)

> 3.  May the maintainer of a package refuse to allow a release to
> include that package, and if so, under what conditions?

Any reason, any time, under any conditions.  The maintainer is the ultimate
power of any project.

> 4.  How are package maintainers selected?  Replaced?

Meritocracy inside the project.  New ones can be appointed by the old
maintainer.  There is no easy way to "replace" a maintainer, but if a
maintainer becomes enough of a problem, then the project can be forked
for gnome.  Think of gcc/egcs.

> 5.  Who has the authority to resolve conflicts between the wishes of
> the maintainers of different packages?  What means may be used to
> resolve such conflicts?

This is a tough one.  I think the board is there to try to get the
maintainers to agree.  It also depends on how much the maintainers respect
the decisions of the board.

> 6.  Who holds the copyright on a release?

This will be a bit tough since copyrights were not really assigned.  I think
the answer would now be "sort of everyone".  It is also a per package thing.
For example libart wants to be assigned to raph, gb wants to be assigned to
helix.  The others I think are a slush of different copyrights depending on
who worked on it when.  This is why any copyright assigning will be a little
hard.

Also I would be slightly partial to assigning copyrights to the FSF.  This is
because I think richard is the least likely candidate to abuse those
copyrights for proprietary purposes.

/me imagines the headlines "RMS hired by Microsoft, makes GNU proprietary"

George

-- 
George <jirka@5z.com>
   Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, 
   but most times he will pick himself up and carry on.
                       -- Winston Churchill