On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 07:43 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > > > Since it is specifically external legal liability that prevents (2), > > > that suggests being as proactive as possible about all *legal* issues > > > in order to avoid delays. Understanding that perfect foresight is > > > impossible, who is in charge of assessing legal issues and being the > > > best humanly possible lookout for legal icebergs? What are they doing > > > right now to help meet this proposed schedule? > > > > Red Hat legal is pretty much the gatekeeper for such issues. > > Gatekeepers are by definition stationary and deal with problems that > come to them :) Who from Fedora is responsible for pushing RH legal to > work proactively on this kind of thing, or alternately, responsible > for finding such problems and bringing them to RH legal ASAP? We're actually very proactive here. A lot of it filters down to points like checking at package review and ongoing bits from individual package maintainers[1]. In this specific case, it wasn't something that could have been discovered sooner. There's not really anything that could have made it apparent sooner that I can see. Jeremy [1] With the breadth of things considered Fedora, it would be an impossible job to shackle one person with keeping track of all of it. _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
