incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: [POLICY][DOC] IP clearance process refinements
Date Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:11:15 GMT
On Mar 19, 2006, at 6:25 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

> On 3/19/06, Leo Simons <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:26:04PM +0000, robert burrell donkin  
>> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> 3 there is no indication the form which CLA's and CCLA's are  
>>> relevant.
>>> this makes oversight difficult.
>>> PROPOSAL: the form should include official names (as listed in the
>>> foundation documents) for those donating the code.
>> Hrmpf. Aren't official names supposed to be private?
> didn't know that
>> I think we have a
>> map of "nickname" -> "official name" which is somewhere private. I  
>> think
>> the rule should be that all non-official names should be  
>> registered in
>> that mapping.
> anyone know where this lives?

Do you mean this?

>>> should this be in the incubator repository or in the project?
>> As long as the policy documents where it is, then it should be ok.  
>> I'd
>> vote for incubator repo.
> +1
> anyone care to suggest a suitable location in the incubator  
> repository?

+1 it would be nice to have a single location which contained all of  
the original untouched donations.

>>> 5 the VOTE from the project receiving the code is unnecessary and
>>> confusing. it serves no useful legal purpose and normal apache  
>>> process
>>> can handle objections when the code is committed.
>>> PROPOSAL: scrap this requirement
>> *shrug*. I like how it makes explicit that its a group decision  
>> (which
>> also implies you don't go sue the individual that did the commit  
>> if there
>> is ever a problem).
> the vote proved to be confusing in practice. the concensus seems to be
> +0 'yes but only if it's legal'.
> the legal oversight is supposed to be provided by the incubator pmc
> not the project where the code lands.
> this is probably a good reason why the donation should be initially
> committed into the incubator repository. it can then be yanked by
> anyone in incubator. alternatively, the code could be committed to a
> private repository since it's only there for the records.
> AIUI the commit should be safe enough since the execution will be done
> by an ASF official or member. processing a grant is an official ASF
> operation and the work is done on behalf of the foundation.
> anyone who knows more like to jump in here?

I personally think a vote is just good form.  Donations of entire cvs  
or svn trees require the assistance of infrastructure and I would  
hate to ask them to do something and then have the community  
ultimately reject the code.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message