www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: CCLA executed (Follow-Up)
Date Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:21:26 GMT
Ms. Williams,

let me try to weigh in on this issue in my official capacity
of the current VP/Chair of Apache Incubator:

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:25 PM, zaminah_williams
<zwilliams@onyxconsults.com> wrote:
> Benson,
>
> I would like to keep legal copied for this particular discussion.

I really don't think there's anything here for legal to be concerned with,
but I'll keep them CCed if you insist.

>  I do understand what you're conveying and I do appreciate your willingness to
> come to a resolution.  One of the issues that we are facing is that Onyx employed
> an individual (Joe mentioned in previous email) that contributed and executed an
> ICLA while under our employment.

Are you saying that the company now questions the legality of that ICLA?
If not -- lets assume that your company was and is fine with that individual
filing an ICLA while employed.

> This individual was identified by Joe as one of the small core members of the
> Apache NiFi Team. This individual contributed from December 2013-September
> 2014, but after I raised questions about how her contributions would affect our
> current contract and contract renewal she was excluded from further participation
> in the Apache NiFi Incubator Project. Due to her exclusion she then became
> frustrated and resigned. I have attached her resignation to support this claim.
> This is something that you and Apache should be aware of.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Personally I do not see this event
as material to the discussion at hand, but I do acknowledge understanding
the facts you are stating.

> What I am now being told is that now that this individual is no longer affiliated
> with Onyx Consulting Services that we can move forward with no
> acknowledgement or attribution of her past efforts and contribution in the
> Apache NiFi proposal as a committer while affiliated with Onyx. Benson please
> understand that this is something that I cannot accept.

Let me see if I get this straight:
  1. An individual in question was working on some functionality of what
   today is known as Apache NiFi (incubating) *prior* to submitting
   a proposal for the incubating.

   2. On 11/19/14 Joe Witt started a *discussion* thread around proposing
   NiFi for Apache Incubation. The original text of the proposal did NOT
   list the individual in question in the initial committers section.

   3. On 11/21/14 Benson Margulies started an official IPMC vote on whether
   to accept NiFi for Apache Incubation. The text of the proposal still did NOT
   list the individual in question in the initial committers section.
On top of that
   between 11/19 and 11/21 nobody asked the question of whether the proposal
   needs to be modified to include said individual.

   4. On 11/24/14 Benson Margulies closed the official IPMC vote on whether
   to accept NiFi for Apache Incubation as PASSING.

   5. This means that the window between 11/19/14-11/24/14 was not utilized
   to add said individual to the proposal via the normal mean. While I would
   agree that the window size of 5 days is small, it is not atypical at all.

If I get this flow of events right here what we have right now is an individual
who:
    1. is no longer employed by your company
    2. was not mentioned on the proposal between 11/19/14/-11/24/14

At this point we can NOT turn the clock back. If you desire the optics of that
individual being mentioned on the original proposal -- it is too late for that.

If the issue at hand, however, is for that individual to be recognized as
one of the committers on the project based on past experience with the
code base -- this is *really* easy to accomplish. As Benson said, all that
needs to happen is for that individual to show up on the mailing list and
asked to be included.

The only point where you advocating for that individual would be required
is a *extremely* unlikely event of the project pushing back on a *personal*
request.

Does this make things clear?

> The ICLA and CCLA were
> signed and we were both excited to move forward, but because this individual
> was excluded we have lost a key and critical resource.

While it may be true that your company lost a critical resource it would be
completely orthogonal to whether that resources is still available to
work on Apache NiFi (incubating). As Benson pointed out, as soon as that
individual shows up and asks for being included -- the usual ASF community
management process is going to kick-in and the likelihood of this individual
to be added to the project in the official capacity of a committer is extremely
high.

A key point to realize here is this: at ASF we do NOT associate participation
in the community with the employment status. This is simply not negotiable.
This is one of the pillars of the "Apache Way".

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message