Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates
 10.52.66.228 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.66.228;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F5027D8.1070004@rowe-clan.net>
References: <6FA5AFBB-FDD7-43DF-9E5D-4AA94A85529D@sharp.fm>
	<4EE90734.7020809@rowe-clan.net>
	<4F4D9767.80409@rowe-clan.net>
	<201202291559.14952.nd@perlig.de>
	<4F4E6397.90300@rowe-clan.net>
	<17CC007E-42CB-451A-B6EF-97B4D073F3F8@gbiv.com>
	<4F4FAFD6.6030305@rowe-clan.net>
	<E42CEFA9-2620-4BB1-B4E2-B28BF9C2CFDA@gbiv.com>
	<4F5027D8.1070004@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 22:08:54 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CABD8fLXB8yUrwLLxA9QnxBF=RWpvZT3DsKhv2KZnJG6nLRFqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IP Clearance? NAK
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@apache.org>
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>,
	Eric Covener <covener@gmail.com>, general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 20:52, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wro=
te:
> On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you are signing up to do that ip-clearance, since it doesn't
>>> seem to be coming from the committer.
>>
>> IP clearance for an existing committer is BULLSHIT. =A0I already cleared
>> that with Legal when I was chair of this project.
>
> Somehow, having chaired the HTTP Server project for 2 years, I had missed
> the memo. =A0This information is not being communicated. =A0Thank you for
> enlightening me, our chair Eric, and the rest of the TLP communities.
>
> The HTTP Server Project will proceed to ignore the IP Clearance process
> laid out by the Incubator for all incoming contributions from any actual
> project committer or their employer, until informed otherwise by the
> President of the foundation.

Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they
*should*, along the lines Roy suggests in that thread.

The HTTP PMC cannot ignore the clearance process. But we do need to
fix the process. And we don't need your crap.

-g