Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.220 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=TyZlZlQfj6FFp2HrIrY+JQQEIvcCFBPVRCMCYXk6O4AeKJFVxVfbv9KAfMBWlAEVO3
         FoP9+Qg6TjTj25An3eWhaghmiDdINrZ9kQadvFX9YP1KtxcNIrPa67q1ImHv8R5AECYj
         wfo7d44aagibCTwjc+pfc3KKaU8d2tigVXZas=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A2F8544.6010600@gmail.com>
References: <15E989F84B0E4DBCA5D3EBFAA24287B7@developer>
	 <caf30e2a0906100153s81ec8fbj21171ca2f64c82dc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A2F8544.6010600@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:55:15 +0100
Message-ID: <f470f68e0906100455w7573d2a0i3ba9d49bcdeb98e7@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bypassing Incubator
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Tim Ellison<t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Gavin <gavin@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So, can someone tell me what the rules are regarding TLPs bringing in
>>> subprojects directly to their TLP rather than coming through incubator?
>>
>> To add to Bill's response, the general position is;
>>
>> 1. Any substantial codebase needs at least IP Clearance in Incubator,
>> which is effectively just a record of where/when/how it came from, and
>> an opportunity for Incubator PMC members to have a look and make sure
>> that there is no flagrant IP issues.
>
> I never understood this part. =A0Why is the Incubator PMC any more
> qualified to decide if incoming code contains a "fragrant IP issue" than
> the destination TLP PMC?

the incubator PMC is more-or-less a subset of the membership

>=A0After all, the TLP PMC are doing that check
> continuously for the day to day contributions received.

true

day to day contributions are covered by CLAs and section 5 of the
apache license. there are a few different wrinkles when importing code
from outside.

> I agree that more eyes are better, but then it would not be the
> Incubator PMC specifically that could catch such problems.

the PMC is supposed to review the documentation recorded and perform
basic due diligence (stuff like checking that the required grants have
been received by Apache)

but IMHO the main role is ensuring that there are people available to
answer questions about the process and to reach consensus on difficult
cases

it is useful to have the records in one format in one place. when this
was completely devolved to PMCs, forensic investigation was difficult.
this was a scaling worry (and a PITA when it needed to be done). the
two step process is more heavyweight (IMHO the current records
required should be streamlined) but gives more confidence all PMCs
understand how to import code and ensures that the public records are
easily available without the need to post mail to PMCs.

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org