incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
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 <>

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein <> 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)


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