incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Short form IP clearance
Date Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:11:21 GMT
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a
> > VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the Foundation in
> > matters of that Project. The forms/recording are valid, so I haven't
> > suggested changing that (tho I'd like to see them move under /legal/, I'm
> > not fussed about their location).
> >
> > I would hope that a PMC includes a note in their report to the Board,
> that
> > they filed a clearance form. That is just natural reporting. But that is
> > quite different from one TLP being subject to another TLP's vote (whether
> > lazy consensus or not).
> >
> > There could certainly be an argument that a PMC needs to be
> double-checked
> > by $entity. But that kind of second-guessing means $entity needs to
> > double-check all commits and all release artifacts. We trust PMCs to get
> > their IP done correctly, as they work on their project and make releases.
> >
>
> What you're saying makes a lot of sense.  I've always questioned the
> benefit of TLPs submitting IP Clearances to the incubator, but not
> questioned it because they're so few and far between it's irrelevant.
>

I get a bit crazy-headed when I perceive the ASF encroaches on the
independence of a TLP. This isn't really a case of the ASF imposing, but
similar. In my view, the Incubator cannot impede/affect the independence of
another TLP. Structurally. The Foundation creates each PMC as an
individual, independent group. Thus, I believe a few of these steps are
just incorrect. I'd like our documentation to reflect the reality of the
independence of our TLPs.

I would however pressure that podlings are not capable of completing this
> on their own, and that they should continue to follow the processes defined
> already.  They have knowledgeable mentors, but we should generally note
> that the IPMC as a whole is responsible for the podlings.
>

Absolutely! The referenced page (and the associated guide) explicitly state
it is for existing projects only. (the language could be clarified as "TLP,
not podling", but yeah: definitely not for podlings)

Cheers,
-g

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