incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Cooper <>
Subject Re: The line between full incubation and IP clearance
Date Sun, 01 Jan 2006 19:48:06 GMT
On 1/1/06, Ted Husted <> wrote:
> On 12/28/05, Noel J. Bergman <> wrote:
> > Although that might be technically true, we do things collectively in
> the
> > ASF.  Mind you, we've not had a process for voting on IP Clearance type
> > submissions, so that's been a potential loophole.
> I'm not sure what a vote would accomplish. Are we saying that we don't
> trust PMCs to do due diligence as to the action items on the
> checklist? That would be a strange perspective since the key role of
> every TLP PMC is to oversee the IP of each and every commit made to
> the project's repository.
> An attractive aspect of the IP Clearance protocol is that it *closes*
> the podling loophole that might bring committers into the Foundation
> outside of the meritocratic process. One thing that the votes on the
> proposal and podling graduation do is sanction the list of podling
> committers, who usually go on to become PMC members. In that case, we
> do need the Incubator PMC to vote on the new committers, and since the
> podling is an unproven community, we do need someone to decide if the
> community meets our standard of meritocracy.
> If code is developed outside of an ASF repository and mailing list,
> then it is appropriate that we provide a pedigree for the code. It is
> also appropriate that we have a central record of all such code that a
> PMC is bringing int our repository. It is also appropriate that we
> maintain that record at the Incubator, so that all external code
> arrives in one place. But, I would suggest that the people best suited
> to vote on the code itself are the people who are already making the
> technical decisions about such code: The receiving PMC.
> In the case of an IP Clearance, there is not a new community to
> consider.

In some cases, I would agree. In others, I would not. In the particular case
of MyFaces accepting the ADF Faces donation, for example, I believe that
MyFaces has a general JSF community, but I disagree that there will
therefore be a de facto community around ADF Faces just because the MyFaces
PMC decides to accept the code. This has to do with the scale of the
donation. While none of us have seen the code yet, my expectation is that
the donation will be at least as large as the existing MyFaces code base, if
not larger. That is not something that would be naturally absorbed by an
existing community.

In fact, in this particular case, it seems clear from the discussions on
dev@myfaces that most people - from both MyFaces and ADF Faces - would
prefer that the ADF Faces donation go through the full incubation process. I
fully understand and respect your desire to close the "free committership"
loophole, but I also believe that such a substantial donation warrants full
incubation. Short of asking Oracle to keep the proposed committer list to a
minimum (e.g. Adam & John), I'm not sure how we can resolve this dilemma.

Martin Cooper

What is before the Incubator PMC is the issue of whether the
> code *can* be licensed to the Foundation. Whether the code *should* be
> licensed to the Foundation is a decision best left to the receiving
> PMC, who, by direction of the Board, already decide whether such code
> should be licensed to the ASF every time there is a commit to that
> project.
> -Ted.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message