incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Short form IP clearance
Date Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:50:58 GMT
Stian's comment that the individual members of the IPMC be consulted simply
due to their encountering IP issues more often is a very nice way to put it.

My only small edit would be to not mention a -1 vote, but just to say "any
objection or suggestion raised on the IPMC list should be considered
seriously".

The only remaining problem is that the IPMC general list is a very busy
list. Increasing traffic to it is a downside risk. On the other hand,
gaining access to the IPMC's experience is an upside. I don't think we can
say with great confidence exactly how that balance turns out, but I would
suggest that we start with a stance of offering to help.



On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
wrote:

> So perhaps the clarification (beyond removing SVN reference) would be that
> IPMC just records the IP clearance documents for TLPs, and each clearance
> mentioned on incubator list gives a possibility to get insight from IPMC
> members who do IP clearance more often than each TLP on its own.
>
> However this could not be subject to an IPMC vote, the incubator plays more
> of a registrar role.
>
> Obviously any -1 vote from IPMC should be considered by the TLP just like
> on their own lists, but ultimately the decision could be the TLPs, which
> might have to consult legal (which would look at what the incubator said).
>
> My £0.014. :)
> On 8 Mar 2016 16:44, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > This has not been formally or officially requested and/or demanded
> > by the Incubator to Legal Affairs.
> >
> > W/ my legal affairs hat on, I am not going to "take away"
> > responsibility from a PMC unless it is required or asked
> > or demanded of Legal Affairs. As of right now, this responsibility
> > is still the IPMCs until changed.
> >
> > > On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:45 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to follow up on this thread, were the changes ever completed?
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:20 PM William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey <
> > marvin@rectangular.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <
> johndament@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>> I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to be responsible.
> > >> We
> > >>>>> just need a new process defined.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Actually, since the Incubator continues to receive criticism for
its
> > >>>> role in IP Clearance, I specifically request that the Incubator
be
> > >>>> relieved of that role. If having the Incubator hold the power to
> > >>>> "meddle" causes such alarm, the Board should find somebody else
to
> do
> > >>>> this work.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't think we should be looking to the Board directly for this,
we
> > >>> should be looking to Legal Affairs to reaffirm, adjust, or revoke
> this
> > >>> arrangement.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> And Legal Affairs has tangential control over Incubator, but the board
> > is
> > >> responsible
> > >> for the IPMC charter, so if you want to change the scope of this
> > project,
> > >> the board
> > >> is the final arbiter.
> > >>
> > >> Some of this might be confusion over Incubator's role.  From memory,
> > >> incubator
> > >> generally didn't 'vote' on incoming other PMC code bases, but
> maintained
> > >> the
> > >> canonical list of imports (the format is this committee's creation and
> > >> choice),
> > >> and the general@i.a.o list was used to 'announce' the importation of
> > >> external
> > >> code bases.  If someone at g@i.a.o noticed something amiss, they are
> > >> always
> > >> welcome to point out whatever IP provenance issue they perceive to a
> > >> receiving
> > >> committee (often the IPMC itself for incubating code bases).
> > >>
> > >> If we trust the importing PMC to understand IP provenance, which we do
> > >> because
> > >> each of them maintain code bases, than this whole issue of IPMC
> > non-voting
> > >> vs. record keeping becomes much simpler.  Since the IPMC is good at
> > >> specific
> > >> things, such as recording entry to the ASF, it still seems like a
> smart
> > >> place for
> > >> the records.  The alternative seems like adding a converse to the
> attic
> > >> project,
> > >> perhaps we could title it Apache Doormat?
> > >>
> > >>> We have enough to worry about with our primary responsibility of
> > >>>> incubating podlings. We don't need more reasons for powers-that-be
> to
> > >>>> give us grief.
> > >>>
> > >>> The powers that be (a.k.a., the board) either need to reinstate Jim
> as
> > >>> VP of Affairs or find a replacement, and then hold that individual
> > >>> (and associated committee) accountable for revisiting this issue.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> That's extra confusing, I don't see where in the prior meeting minutes
> > or
> > >> any
> > >> other ASF resources where there is not an active VP Legal Affairs?  I
> > think
> > >> you are confusing process (act of resigning, recognition of a
> > resignation,
> > >> appointing a replacement) with the actual motivation for someone to
> hold
> > >> a role.
> > >>
> > >> You did a nice job of reinforcing Marvin's concern about
> > micromanagement.
> > >> Reading this statement above and the tone you used, I personally
> > wouldn't
> > >> be keen to serve as an officer under your directatorship.  /boggle
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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