incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: No more existing-TLP graduations (was: [PROPOSAL] Curator for the Apache Incubator)
Date Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:22:53 GMT
Hi Benson,

On 2/26/13 2:17 PM, "Benson Margulies" <> wrote:

>On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
><> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>>> ...I'd like to suggest two changes:
>>> 1) Incubation is for new TLPs only. Turn off the "graduate-into-TLP"
>>> 2) Move the "short form" IP clearance to Legal Affairs, to clarify that
>>> we're only talking IP, rather than other concerns....
>> +1 to both, assuming Legal Affairs accepts 2)
>Guys, this was my point a few weeks ago, and the question I posed to
>the board. Did the board discuss it at the meeting, or is that part of
>the board meeting happening here?

And it was my point during the whole HCatalog thing too. And Greg's when
it was
discussed during the board meeting. So yes, I think that's what we're

>I think that there are several hairs worth splitting here.
>1. Merging into a TLP is a possible outcome for a podling, even when
>the initial intention is to graduate independently. Even if we
>eliminate this as a starting intention, we should clarify how we
>expect this to happen. My prior email suggested a very low-overhead
>view of such events.

It's my intention that that *should not be a possible outcome for a
And just because we never said it explicitly (or maybe we did), that
mean it was universally accepted either. You can gauge this by pure
numbers of
how many podlings have went this route (comparatively few).

>2. If an existing TLP wants to incorporate an existing non-Apache
>community, the incubator _might_ might serve a useful role. Or, not.
>I'm also perfectly happy to tell that TLP to make a branch and grant
>some commit access and vote status as appropriate as things proceed,
>which is how I'd restate your views.

Right, not sure the views need restating. I think they've been stated
fairly clearly
so far.

>3. We do have a group of people with some minimal, observed,
>willingness to pay some attention to IP clearance. Legal affairs,
>well, is more of a talking-shop. So I'd expect Sam to want some
>helpers before he'd accept this.

How about we start letting people talk for themselves? I sense an
inclination at least
in this email to not do that :)


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

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

View raw message