incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Short form IP clearance
Date Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:11:20 GMT
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