incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: Short form IP clearance
Date Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:01:42 GMT
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > On the following page:
>> >
>> >
>> > The process steps do not align with the intent described in the Preamble,
>> > and some steps are not required. Specifically, steps 5, 7, and 8.
>> >
>> > Step 5: the code will be imported *somewhere*; there is no reason for it
>> to
>> > be duplicated into the Incubator repository. The ASF simply requires
>> > paperwork to acknowledge the propriety of that import, wherever it may
>> be.
>> > There isn't even a reason for a checksum.
>> >
>> > Step 7: the Incubator has no prerogative over what the VP of an Apache
>> > project does (or other Officers, for that matter). If a TLP wants some
>> > code, then they can do so. And the representative of that TLP (the VP, an
>> > Officer) is the one taking responsibility for their actions. The
>> Incubator
>> > has been a recording area, but that doesn't give it discretion over other
>> > projects.
>> > [ IMO, the recording should go somewhere identified by VP Legal Affairs,
>> > and be entirely disconnected from the Incubator ]
>> Just some historical perspective (from the previous VP Legal Affairs,
>> though this predates my having that role), IP clearance is something
>> that is rarely done on a PMC level so it is something that most
>> individual PMCs don't have much experience with; at a foundation level
>> it is done frequently and primarily by the incubator.  Hence the VP of
>> Legal Affairs (my predecessor and then unchanged by myself) designated
>> that the Incubator have this role.
>> > Step 8: moot, once (7) is removed.
>> >
>> > I'd like to modify the steps to reflect the above points.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> As far as I can tell, it has been working without issue, where lazy
>> consensus is key to making it work smoothly.  So I'm -1 on fixing
>> something that isn't broke.
> It *is* broken. An Officer of the corporation should not be subject to the
> will of the IPMC.

What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month?

Let me repeat what I just said.  I don't believe I was being obtuse,
but then again, you don't appear to have read what I wrote.

1) I hope we can agree that an Officer of the corporation should be
subject to the direction of the Legal Affairs committee.

2) When I first got that particular job, I'll admit that the division
of labor seemed a little... peculiar.  But when I investigated, the
argument made sense, so I went with it.  If you don't like it, perhaps
your beef is with the current VP of Legal.  If you want to make an
argument that it is more efficient to who specialize in IP clearance
to split their time between two committees, go for it.  But the
process isn't broken simply because you don't like the color of the
hat that is being worn by the person or people doing the job.

Recapping: it is quite OK for VP of Legal to set policy.  It is quite
OK for VP of Legal to delegate work.  It is even quite OK for the
current VP of Legal to come to a different conclusion than the two
previous holders of that job.  But what's not OK is...

> Gavin asked me how TLPs can import code, and I noted the IP clearance
> process. I looked at it, and found it to be wrong. Whichever TLP he was
> referring to should not be posting to general@. They should "file the
> paperwork" and call it done.
> I will even tell them to ignore those steps. If/when I ever do it with an
> Officer hat on, I'll ignore those steps.

... seriously uncool dude.  What you are saying is that you know
better than both the VP of Legal and those that have been doing this
work without conflict for years.  Not.  Cool.

> My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our organization.

Reality is what is reflected on this page:

Click on any of the clearance documents.

I don't know what you are smoking, but those documents are real.

As an added bonus, I encourage you to scan the following reports,
searching for the word "Incubator":

I don't know whether you remember those reports, but I'll remind you
that you approved of each and every one of them.  I specifically
discussed the division of labor, and followed up subsequently with
mentions of issues being forwarded.

> Cheers,
> -g

- Sam Ruby

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

View raw message