Open Stack

On 29/08/16 10:32, Lana Brindley wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Docs is planning some infrastructure changes, which would mean we need to consider our retention policy for old documentation on developer.openstack.org and docs.openstack.org. In the course of the discussion (some relevant bits below), we considered it prudent to ask the legal team to find out if Foundation have a retention policy in place for documentation on these sites that we should be aware of.
> 
> Do you know of anything that might be relevant here?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lana 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [OpenStack-docs] Change of doc publishing
> Date: 	Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:36:53 -0700
> From: 	Anne Gentle <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>
> To: 	Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>
> CC: 	openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org <openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org <mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 2016-08-26 05:40:31 -0700 (-0700), Anne Gentle wrote:
>     [...]
>     > I'd be comfortable with an archive policy that keeps all documents
>     > (project repos, openstack-manuals, api-site) for two years and
>     > then backs them up to a storage area that is not accessible from
>     > the web.
> 
>     Probably the closest thing we have to this is our server backups
>     (implemented using software called "bup"). Their purpose is to be
>     able to restore the previous state of our important systems in the
>     event of loss or compromise of service, so possibly not the same
>     thing you're desiring here. Also, identifying which documents are
>     "older" than a certain date is nontrivial (we can delete files last
>     modified before a certain date, but does that actually achieve the
>     same result?).
> 
>     How about taking this from the revision control perspective... we
>     (presumably) have the source used to build that rendered form of the
>     documentation all the way back to the beginning, and if someone
>     really needs (for legal reasons) a copy of it then they can expend
>     the resources to figure out how to render it again?
> 
>     > Lana, I believe you should review that with legal and the Foundation.
>     > There's the legal-discuss mailing list to get that started.
>     [...]
> 
>     [I am not a lawyer and I'm responding as a concerned member of the
>     community, not representing the opinions of my employer.]
> 
>     I won't object to anyone consulting lawyers, but I'm pretty sure the
>     Foundation (the only legal entity we really have in this context) is
>     under no contractual obligation to maintain documentation at all for
>     software produced by the community. It's probably best to start out
>     asking them from that angle, rather than soliciting their opinions
>     on how long they think old releases of software should have rendered
>     documentation on a Web site (that latter question is something the
>     community and in particular the community members working on that
>     content and those systems should be free to decide).
> 
>     I can understand the sort of legal paranoia which infects business
>     uses for documentation, but meeting those requirements falls on
>     those businesses. For example, Rackspace almost certainly retains
>     old versions of any documentation they've produced and published on
>     their site, some of which may be derived from old versions of
>     OpenStack upstream documentation, but meeting their document
>     retention requirements is not the legal responsibility of the
>     OpenStack community at large (how would any court even be able to
>     enforce such a requirement on our community itself?).
> 
> 
> This phrasing is a bit strong (paranoia, infection, yikes). I want to be sure to represent that this is clearly an entirely new context, and all I have to draw from is past experiences. We'll need to listen to various representatives in the community to decide what outcomes we want here.
>  
> 
> 
>     If the OpenStack Foundation really is somehow legally responsible
>     for keeping and publishing old copies of OpenStack software
>     documentation, that's something they would need to do directly as
>     well. They have no authority to impose those requirements on the
>     community, and to my knowledge not even any mechanisms in place
>     through which they could ensure it's happening anyway.
> 
> 
> Okay, this separation of Foundation from infra-team-members helps me understand your perspective in this policy shaping. 
> 
> I also want to add that this type of project is a cool opportunity to innovate in docs publishing. You'd learn a ton by helping out, and Andreas is a fantastic teacher, plus the infra team is super lively. At a scale of hundreds of thousands of pages this type of work is crucial, cool, and at a scale that you can have bragging rights on for years to come. :)
> 
> Anne
>  
> 
>     --
>     Jeremy Stanley
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-docs mailing list
>     OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Lana Brindley
Technical Writer
Rackspace Cloud Builders Australia
http://lanabrindley.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 538 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/attachments/20160829/af3d1122/attachment.pgp>