incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2018 20:04:48 GMT
Hi -

Thanks to everyone for participating so far. I see that many feel that the IP Clearance being
part of the Incubator for public recording purposes is in the interests of the Foundation.

The records at <>
are important.

- The direction about new project’s in the box is inconsistent and does not get to the proper
- If the process is not for podlings then why are there (incubating) projects in the table?
- There is no instruction about where to add the entry and I see additions to both the top
and the bottom of the table.

The lefthand navigation has some dead links and the IP Clearance process could be made more

A concern about having IP Clearance from a podling is if the podling is retired.

If a podling has a new contribution after the contributions that are documented in the Podling
Proposal then do they go through this process like a TLP or do they just record it?

If a podling is asking for IP Clearance then I think that should NOT be by LAZY CONSENSUS.


> On Jun 5, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Craig Russell <> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Dave Fisher <> 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.
> :
> "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 discusses
Podling IP Clearance.
> The documentation at 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message