incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira>
Subject Re: Cultivating Outstanding IP Stewards
Date Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:47:57 GMT

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 06:07 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 11/14/13 9:07 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" <> wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Alex Harui <> wrote:
> >> I still think that having a "Release Auditor" role provides backup for
> >> getting incubator releases out without having folks have to be on the
> >>IPMC
> >> to approve the legal aspects of a release.  Just like any ASF Member can
> >> backup busy PMC Chairs for some actions, any TLP PMC member should be
> >>able
> >> to backup a busy IPMC member for release auditing.
> >
> >Speaking as someone who would presumably be suitable for this "Release
> >Auditor" role, I'm opposed to the idea -- and not just because I don't
> >want to
> >get stuck doing all the dirty work.
> >
> >People who sign up to Mentor a podling should expect to vote on releases
> >--
> >especially the first.  The Incubator PMC tasks Mentors with overseeing
> >the IP
> >clearance processes.  A Mentor who votes +1 on the first incubating
> >release is
> >implicitly affirming that IP clearance was done properly -- because that
> >was
> >their assignment, and if something had gone awry they would surely not
> >vote to
> >release.
> Well, sure, clearly a highly-engaged mentor can better manage IP
> clearance.  But is release voting really an approval of IP clearance?  I
> thought it was more about IP "maintenance": making sure that everything
> in
> the package has a header.  Usually there is a significant amount of time
> between the incubating IP hitting the repo and it being offered for
> release and I thought the clearance had to happen when it hit the repo,
> not at release voting time.
> >
> >A +1 vote from a "Release Auditor" who did not participate in IP
> >clearance is
> >much less meaningful: all it tells you is that whatever superficial
> >inspection
> >they performed on the finished product did not reveal any defects.  If
> >some
> >committer mistakenly attaches an ALv2 header to a file that shouldn't have
> >one, a "Release Auditor" won't find that.  To catch such problems, you
> >need
> >someone monitoring the the dev and commits lists: possibly a Mentor,
> >ideally a
> >project contributor.
> I thought the main point of this thread was to find a way to unblock
> podlings looking to release but their mentors dis-engaged, even
> temporarily. Are you saying that the IPMC members who step in to help
> (like the ones who recently stepped in for VXQuery) must do the forensics
> of IP clearance by scanning the commit emails?  Seems like folks doing
> "release auditing" can do that as well if that's really required.  We
> might even make a tool that searches through repo history for add/remove
> of copyrights.
> >
> >The most meaningful +1 votes are those cast by enlightened core
> >contributors,
> >because they speak from deep knowledge of the code base and its history.
> >IP
> >stewardship is a continuous process, and the Incubator's goal should be to
> >graduate communities with the motivation and expertise to attend to it
> >over
> >the long term -- not to certify code.
> Agreed.  The only purpose of having a Release Auditor role is to expand
> the pool of folks who can vote on a release without requiring them to
> become full-fledged IPMC members.  Now if you're saying that having
> backup
> voters is not going to meet some requirement of IP safety, it seems like
> it can just be made a requirement of a backup vote to do whatever that
> work is.  If you're saying that will never work because the only folks
> who
> can validate a release are folks who are engaged in the podling, then
> even
> having other IPMC folks backup them isn't going to work either, and
> solutions need to be found to somehow get those mentors to find the time
> to meet their obligations.


I'm not sure I see the difference between a release auditor and an IPMC
member. If someone is sufficiently clued up to audit a release, then
they're surely ready to join the Incubator PMC. Am I missing something?

My interest is in a lesser level of involvement, where someone has shown
merit within their own PPMC and can get a binding vote there, but
no-where else. That feels to me like a very useful intermediate step to


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

View raw message