incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shenfeng Liu <liush...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:34:07 GMT
2012/10/9 Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>

>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 3:56 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> The proposed PMC chair is not an officer of the PPMC.  The PPMC has
> no chair.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suppose the updated graduation resolution would need to be balloted
> here.  Then the IPMC can vote on it on their list for graduation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, all of the things that a PPMC is supposed to have been done
> need to be checked off somewhere - on the podling status page, I expect.
> >>>>
> >>>> Meanwhile ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Different question.
> >>>>
> >>>> I nose around in the Symphony code from time to time and I notice
> there is no reflection of the grant and availability under ALv2 has
> occurred.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We were notified that the grant was received.
> >>>
> >>>> Is it expected that something be done about that?  There are files
> that are
> >>>>
> >>>> - still under Sun LGPL license,
> >>>> - some that add an IBM License and copyright under private license
> >>>> - some that claim an IBM Copyright and provide no license whatsoever,
> >>>>   although there is a notice concerning government use
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this needs to be cleaned up before any of this is part of a
> >>> release.  But it is not a graduation issue.  Remember, an SGA may come
> >>> from anywhere, at any time, before graduation or after graduation.
> >>> This is blessing, not a problem.  But the code does need to be
> >>> reviewed and brought in line with policy before it can be part of a
> >>> release.
> >>
> >> It is still work that ought to be done sooner rather than later. And
> the header work should be done by someone from IBM. Who might that be?
> >>
> >
> > If you recall we had a discussion a while ago on what to do with the
> > Symphony code.  One proposal was to adopt it as the new trunk and move
> > quickly to releasing it.  Another was to merge it into the trunk, a
> > much slower process.  The consensus was to do the slow merge.  So the
> > Symphony SGA did not impact the AOO 3.4.0 or AOO 3.4.1 releases.  But
> > it will impact future releases beyond any 3.4.x maintenance release.
> >
> > So, we'll need to take care of the IP Clearance as part of the next
> > major release.  Where in that cycle it is done is debatable.  But
> > certainly the RAT scans will ensure we don't release any code with
> > incorrect headers.  And we should add an explicit check list item for
> > the next release that go through the other IP Clearance items.
> >
> >> Whoever it is should be doing it already. There is no excuse to delay.
> >
> > If you feel this is something you really want to work on right now I'm
> > sure we can arrange to give you the needed written permission so you
> > can update the headers.
>
> No, even if I had the time (which I do not) I have NO RIGHTs to change
> IBM's corporate IP (even with the grant.) This IP clearance must be done by
> someone who is an employee for IBM. There are plenty of those people in the
> project.
>
>
My understanding is that those license headers indicates that the files HAD
belonged to IBM or granted to IBM (not any other 3rd party). While the SGA
also indicates that IBM already contributed them out. So every one has
right to change them now.
The Symphony files are there, as a history of IBM's contribution, not
cleaned up yet, and not integrated into our AOO release with those
uncleaned licenses. So I think it should not be a problem for our
graduation.
Just my 0.02$.

- Simon



> This is completely analogous to Andrew Rist changing the headers for the
> Oracle grant.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> BTW - Large software grants go through the incubator. TLPs do this. [1]
> >>
> >
> > Right.  And that processes is explicitly not for podlings.
>
> If we graduate without this then I would propose it.
>
> >
> >> I think that not clearing the Symphony grant might be a graduation
> problem for some on the IPMC. It will certainly be discussed.
> >>
> >
> > I'd be happy to delete that code from SVN if the IPMC has problems with
> it.
>
> And then the re-grant may require it.
>
> Keep in mind I don't think this is a blocker, but others may.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -Rob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> - Dennis
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: J├╝rgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 04:45
> >>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> we made good progress towards graduation and I would like to discuss
> the
> >>>> next steps.
> >>>>
> >>>> - we have selected the initial PMC roster
> >>>> - we have selected a PMC chair (vote finished, result summary out
> >>>> standing but we have a clear vote for Andrea Pescetti)
> >>>> - graduation resolution already updated with PMC roster and
> preliminary
> >>>> with the PMC chair
> >>>>
> >>>> Next steps to reach potentially the October board meeting:
> >>>> - start IPMC vote, who will trigger this? Should it or have it be
> >>>> triggered by the new PMC chair?
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope we can start this IPMC vote on Tuesday or Wednesday latest.
> >>>> Anything else we need?
> >>>>
> >>>> Juergen
> >>>>
> >>
>
>

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