Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOqetn_d7LZ325xrS1OB3zbX_amrqVoxY80s07yHN-Mg5oQE4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABD8fLU3BWAWzavuF9F=JzenPhzV0JO=4WXCQo+9BsbpvPdQJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFG6u8E5r7amKF6f8SSDV_TZJ4yREh2qx13m8pc3TZTZaahu0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABD8fLXWN4f4iCkbehoXG+4DfMj1_CYiUn5k1qE9sY1Zy0Qh3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFG6u8ESJ7gtXi+iS4Njh1fC_wrzHGUOxJBaSHb+G-_PjScirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABD8fLWTVdSjVCSTAVqRhKZ2g_dmnjaWX6qDXdA9ZW341edw8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOqetn_d7LZ325xrS1OB3zbX_amrqVoxY80s07yHN-Mg5oQE4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:40:06 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CABD8fLXOs3_4MY_9qYcRytwtibOSNnM+Ei+Z3riU9nnrxzS_Hw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Short form IP clearance
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c075a223b5bc0522a79384

--001a11c075a223b5bc0522a79384
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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.

Cheers,
-g

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:28 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

> Greg,
>
> If I'm reading your email correctly, you're just saying that the Incubator
> is not responsible for processing IP Clearances in a lazy way.  Projects
> should instead direct their IP clearance emails to <<something else>>.
>
> That <<something else>> is TBD.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:17 PM Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices]
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> > >...
> >
> > > What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month?
> > >
> >
> > Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP
> > clearance. And more importantly, to clarify that a PMC is not beholden to
> > the IPMC.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > I certainly read it, you weren't being obtuse :-)
> >
> >
> > > 1) I hope we can agree that an Officer of the corporation should be
> > > subject to the direction of the Legal Affairs committee.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >...
> >
> > > > My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our
> > organization.
> > >
> > > Reality is what is reflected on this page:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> > >
> > > Click on any of the clearance documents.
> > >
> > > I don't know what you are smoking, but those documents are real.
> > >
> >
> > Of course. I didn't say "get rid of IP clearance". Please read my
> original
> > email, if you think otherwise. I just want to alter the published steps
> to
> > reflect that our TLPs are not beholden to the IPMC. We use the Incubator
> as
> > a location to record these things (which I find odd, but is a separate
> > discussion).
> >
> > >...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
>

--001a11c075a223b5bc0522a79384--