incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: Short form IP clearance
Date Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:44:47 GMT
This has not been formally or officially requested and/or demanded
by the Incubator to Legal Affairs.

W/ my legal affairs hat on, I am not going to "take away"
responsibility from a PMC unless it is required or asked
or demanded of Legal Affairs. As of right now, this responsibility
is still the IPMCs until changed.

> On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:45 PM, John D. Ament <> wrote:
> Just to follow up on this thread, were the changes ever completed?
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:20 PM William A Rowe Jr <>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to be responsible.
>> We
>>>>> just need a new process defined.
>>>> Actually, since the Incubator continues to receive criticism for its
>>>> role in IP Clearance, I specifically request that the Incubator be
>>>> relieved of that role. If having the Incubator hold the power to
>>>> "meddle" causes such alarm, the Board should find somebody else to do
>>>> this work.
>>> I don't think we should be looking to the Board directly for this, we
>>> should be looking to Legal Affairs to reaffirm, adjust, or revoke this
>>> arrangement.
>> And Legal Affairs has tangential control over Incubator, but the board is
>> responsible
>> for the IPMC charter, so if you want to change the scope of this project,
>> the board
>> is the final arbiter.
>> Some of this might be confusion over Incubator's role.  From memory,
>> incubator
>> generally didn't 'vote' on incoming other PMC code bases, but maintained
>> the
>> canonical list of imports (the format is this committee's creation and
>> choice),
>> and the general@i.a.o list was used to 'announce' the importation of
>> external
>> code bases.  If someone at g@i.a.o noticed something amiss, they are
>> always
>> welcome to point out whatever IP provenance issue they perceive to a
>> receiving
>> committee (often the IPMC itself for incubating code bases).
>> If we trust the importing PMC to understand IP provenance, which we do
>> because
>> each of them maintain code bases, than this whole issue of IPMC non-voting
>> vs. record keeping becomes much simpler.  Since the IPMC is good at
>> specific
>> things, such as recording entry to the ASF, it still seems like a smart
>> place for
>> the records.  The alternative seems like adding a converse to the attic
>> project,
>> perhaps we could title it Apache Doormat?
>>> We have enough to worry about with our primary responsibility of
>>>> incubating podlings. We don't need more reasons for powers-that-be to
>>>> give us grief.
>>> The powers that be (a.k.a., the board) either need to reinstate Jim as
>>> VP of Affairs or find a replacement, and then hold that individual
>>> (and associated committee) accountable for revisiting this issue.
>> That's extra confusing, I don't see where in the prior meeting minutes or
>> any
>> other ASF resources where there is not an active VP Legal Affairs?  I think
>> you are confusing process (act of resigning, recognition of a resignation,
>> appointing a replacement) with the actual motivation for someone to hold
>> a role.
>> You did a nice job of reinforcing Marvin's concern about micromanagement.
>> Reading this statement above and the tone you used, I personally wouldn't
>> be keen to serve as an officer under your directatorship.  /boggle

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

View raw message