incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: [POLICY][DOC] IP clearance process refinements
Date Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:07:17 GMT
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:26:04PM +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> A few observations from following the process as currently documented
> and proposals for improvements:
> 1 this process can only be executed by a ASF member or officer with
> incubator karma. this needs to be documented on the clearance form.
> PROPOSAL: document this and add section on form so that it's clear who executed


> do we need a name for this role?

Don't think so. People just confuse those names (Re: "champion").

> 2 there is no tie between grant.txt and the incubator IP clearance.
> this makes oversight difficult.
> PROPOSAL: the clearance form should include the official name for the
> grant as recorded in grants.txt.


> 3 there is no indication the form which CLA's and CCLA's are relevant.
> this makes oversight difficult.
> PROPOSAL: the form should include official names (as listed in the
> foundation documents) for those donating the code.

Hrmpf. Aren't official names supposed to be private? I think we have a
map of "nickname" -> "official name" which is somewhere private. I think
the rule should be that all non-official names should be registered in
that mapping.

I think its kind-of cool the ASF allows you to use a pseudonym if you
really want to.

> 4 there is no tie to the actual donated software. this makes oversight
> difficult.
> PROPOSAL: the md5 for the donation should be listed on the form. the
> repository URL where the actual donated is/will be checked in should
> be listed.

+1. Or the sha1, I think that is now best practice :-)

> should this be in the incubator repository or in the project?

As long as the policy documents where it is, then it should be ok. I'd
vote for incubator repo.

> 5 the VOTE from the project receiving the code is unnecessary and
> confusing. it serves no useful legal purpose and normal apache process
> can handle objections when the code is committed.
> PROPOSAL: scrap this requirement

*shrug*. I like how it makes explicit that its a group decision (which
also implies you don't go sue the individual that did the commit if there
is ever a problem).

> i think that these proposals are uncontroversial (representing how the
> process is expected to work) and so can be dealt with by lazy
> consensus.

Yeah, I think that's official :-)

> so unless i hear any objections, i'll update the documents
> in a day or two...

If you have more cycles available, you might want to look at the IP
clearance we've set up for Harmony - its worked rather well and is
probably about ready to be merged as appropriate (there's some stuff in
there about "authorized contributors" which we probably don't want nor
need in general) with the main incubator policies.


Leo, Out Of Cycles(tm)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message