[ZF] Re: Zope Foundation draft docs available for review/comment

[Rob Page]

On Nov 28, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:

 > Thanks to all involved for the work involved!  A
 > couple of observations, and then some errata:
 >
 > o I think some "rationale" for the documents might
 >   help inform comment, especially given distribution
 >   as PDF (which makes textual comparison tedious)
 >   E.g.:

I agree with the point about background and rationale.
We've answered your questions in "shorthand" below (so
as to keep the dialog going) and I'll work it back into
an explanatory document.

Your point about text comparison is well-taken.  These
documents are materially more evolved than anything
we've published in the past.  To the maximum practical
(possible) extend We'll prepare redlines for changes we
make moving forward.

 >   - How does the contributor agreement differ from
 >     the current one?  Name changes only?

The big differences are: name, the removal of the reps
and warranties on IPR infringement, and the
introduction of the employer release.

 >   - How does the ZPL 2.2 differ from 2.1?  Is it also
 >     name changes only?

Name change and the introduction of a license recision
if the user sues for patent violations.

 >   - Could we highligh changes to the bylaws /
 >     membership from the versions outlined earlier
 >     this year?

This would be very tedious.  From memory I don't recall
any "material" provisions that differ from what was
briefed during the summer and/or at EuroPython.
Apologies - the document shoud

 > o The by-laws and membership agreement refer to a
 >   "Zope Devleopment Process" and related terms
 >   ("PMC", etc.), but no document defining them is
 >   present.

We anticiapte that the development process is an early
artifact for the BoD to consider.

 > o The "councils" created by the bylaws (architecture,
 >   planning, and requirements) look a bit top-heavy to
 >   me, especially without the development process
 >   being spelled out.  The right to appoint members of
 >   those councils is a carrot for the "strategic"
 >   membership classes, I guess, but the bylaws don't
 >   acknowledge the "organic" mechanisms alraedy in
 >   existence whic address the same issues.

Sorry - we went from three councils to one -- a single
Software Council.

 > Errata:

[snip good errata... thanks]

 >   - Rather than "Your transmission of a password",
 >     should include "Use of your SSH public key"
 >     (which is the only permitted access mechanism for
 >     doing commits).

or transmission of credentials (even more generic).

[...]

 >    3.12.2 &
 >    6.12.2 Neither "Electronic Voting" specifies how
 >           such votes are to be authenticated, which
 >           won't matter until it does.  Could we
 >           require that electronic ballots be GPG
 >           signed?  Members would, in that case,
 >           submit GPG public keys as part of their
 >           membership application.

This is a good point -- specifically with respect to
collecting credentials as soon as a membership process
starts.  That said, I don't think we want to spell that
out in organizational governance docs.

Thanks Tres.

--
Rob Page               V: 540 361 1710
Zope Corporation       F: 703 995 0412