On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Sam, > > On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 13:54 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: >> The net of all of this is that there will need to be a substantial >> public aspect to this entire discussion. Yes, I will probably have >> some private discussions with ASF lawyers over time over this matter, >> but I can't see any way that we can -- or should -- avoid the need for >> public discussion over this matter. > > Great; thank you for that re-assurance, it encourages me yet further > wrt. Apache's governance, and answers yet more of my remaining > questions, perhaps all. > > It still leaves something you can't answer though: whether it is Rob's > understanding of IBM's intention to camouflage such changes or to flag > them all openly and clearly. Ultimately with a suite of 8+ million > lines, packed with obscure features, and thousands of lines of change a > day it is fairly easy to slip things in, to the potential detriment of > other users of the code.
Given the quieting on the list and the desire to move forward with a vote, I hesitate to write the following: Since IBM has already implemented their workarounds and it is existing code shouldn't it all be contributed via a Software Grant from IBM and go through the same IP remediation as the Oracle grant only at a much smaller level of effort? If done that way then the initial IBM contribution is clear and can be evaluated by whoever desires without requiring heroic effort in order to sort them out from other changes to the codebase. I think that the proposal should be updated to include a bullet point about seeking a grant from IBM in the "Initial Source" section. Best Regards, Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
