incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean T. Anderson" <>
Subject Re: ip clearance process (was Re: Tuscany is still a podling ...)
Date Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:21:32 GMT
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> ...
>>> I "vetoed" the codedump for two main reasons. The first is that  the  IP
>>> clearance process is not being followed: there is no record of  the 
>>> code
>>> here
>>> and there has been no vote by the Tuscany PPMC or Incubator PMC to
>>> accept the code.
>> Here's one clarification because I think this can be confusing for
>> podlings, especially new ones.
>> The ip clearance for the initial code import for a podling gets  handled
>> via some of the "Incubation work items" on the podling status page.
>> Later imports of code developed outside Apache need to follow the ip
>> process [1].
> When Geir went through the motions of "initial" (not really, since we 
> started with no codE) imports for harmony, he filled out IP templates 
> for them. For triplesoup, I've been filling them out too. I find them 
> more clear, clean and detailed than the general "work items"  tracking, eg
> mod_sparql.html
> the one thing that's a bit "different" is that the related VOTE is  the
> incubator voting to accept the project, but otherwise the form  hold up
> well.

Since there wasn't an initial code base for Harmony, I can't imagine how
else it might have been handled, especially with contributions coming
from a variety of contributors.

Hmmmmm .... I suppose the podling status report could be made to handle
multiple contributions by different entities, but an ip clearance form
for each contribution seems a lot more straight forward.


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

View raw message