On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote: > >> >> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée >>> <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org> wrote: >>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant. >>> >>> Is there something that the Incubator can do for EasyAnt that the Ant >>> PMC can't? If not, I don't see a need to wait for this to happen. >> >> I guess that the incubation process for EasyAnt was about training the >> people "attached" to the project so they learn how to build a proper ASF >> community, release, and check IP clearance. Since the Ant PMC doesn't >> contain enough active members so handle such project income, this should >> happen with the help of the Incubator. > > How has the refactoring due to an expected contributor's unwillingness to > sign an ICLA effected the project? This issue makes me think that the main > purpose of going through the incubator was to inoculate the project's IP, not > that there is anything wrong with that. If it is true that the IP is correct > is there any reason for the Incubator not to transfer the EasyAnt project to > the Ant PMC? Does that make sense?
Dave, If this were true, I think that incubation was unnecessary and overkill. The Foundation has an IP clearance process available to existing TLP's that the IPMC helps with. If the ant project just wanted to cover the legal bases in absorbing a large outside code base, it could have used that. I should write that I'm a little perplexed here. Now that the Foundation frowns on 'umbrella projects', I'm a little uncertain as to the purpose of podlings sponsored by and/or intended for delivery to existing TLPs. If the podling is going to end up as a TLP, then the relationship to an existing TLP is moot. If it's going to just end up part of an existing TLP, then we don't need the whole incubation community-building process. The target TLP could run the code through IP clearance, check it into a sandbox, and grant commit access to the sandbox to the participants and then integrate the code and people as it sees fit. Other IPMC members, what am I missing here? > > Note I used the term "transfer" to recognize a different situation or > standard from "graduation to a TLP". > > Somehow the IPMC would need to certify the IP in the podling and then the > target PMC would have to accept the podling. > > VOTEs: > > (1) PPMC - if it can. > (2) Target PMC - to confirm that it wants the podling's IP. > (3) IPMC - to confirm IP and transfer. > (4) Board - do the bylaws require a fourth vote? > > Just a thought. > > Regards, > Dave > > > >> >> Nicolas >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
