incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Short form IP clearance
Date Tue, 08 Mar 2016 04:45:35 GMT
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
>

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