incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2018 20:12:21 GMT
Would it be helpful if incubator submissions came with a [IP Review]
subject line? All accepted incubator and already-evaluated TLP records
would still be presented, with a [IP Recorded] or [IP Reviewed] subject
line.

I suspect it is helpful to show all incoming projects the conclusion of
other TLP's ongoing evaluations, but that evaluation for incubating efforts
must happen on this list.


On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 15:05 Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:

> 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 http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html are
> important.
>
> - The direction about new project’s in the box is inconsistent and does
> not get to the proper place.
> - 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 prominent.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Craig Russell <apache.clr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message