incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2018 16:53:16 GMT
Hi Dave,

> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi -
> 
> I think that the IP Clearance process has become very much a bureaucratic process where
the IPMC is contributing little of value. Very seldom is there any feedback provided.

It is intended to be a bureaucratic process that is organized and run by the PMC with oversight
by the IPMC.

http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html :
"The intent is to simply help to ensure, and record, that due diligence (Software Grant, CLA,
Corp CLA, license and dependencies) has been paid to the incoming code"
"The receiving PMC is responsible for doing the work. The Incubator is simply the repository
of the needed information."
"Note that only lazy consensus is required."

> 
> (1) It is separate from the SGA process for new podlings, but it is similar in that the
Secretary will record the SGA and/or CCLA.
> (2) The documentation is confusing about whether or not podlings need to follow it or
not.

The documentation at https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html discusses Podling
IP Clearance.

The documentation at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html discusses non-Podling
IP Clearance. 

Perhaps a rewrite of either or both of these would be useful. Patches welcome. 

> (3) Top Level Projects are supposed to understand how to clear IP as that is a major
part of the incubation process. If there are any questions the legal-discuss mailing list
and JIRA are available.
> (4) The Incubator is already stretched to provide Mentoring to all of our Podlings and
IP Clearance seems to be off topic and not really scalable.

Wide visibility is one result of the process being performed under the auspices of the incubator.
Lazy consensus means that overworked IPMC members do not need to be involved if they choose
not to be. But they can still see that a big code base is being proposed going directly to
a TLP.

> (5) Once a TLP graduates from the Incubator it seems regressive to have to go back unless
there is a Community around the grant to be Incubated. That would lead to a Podling Proposal
and not IP Clearance.
> 
> I think that the IPMC should recommend to the Board that this recording process be fully
moved to the Secretary.

I'm afraid I don't see the problem that this change would solve.

> 
> Regards,
> Dave

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message