On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > >> First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at > >> all. I've been at ATO2015 and then traveling. > >> > >> What I will say, whether it has been said or not, that > >> as VP Legal, I will work w/ the Incubator on whatever issues > >> or questions they may have. If it's time for a conversation > >> between VP Legal and Incubator re: IP clearance, one that > >> has not happened for at least a decade, iirc, then I am > >> fine with that as well and am ready to do so. > > > > Please read the thread: it contains my part of that conversation that I > > think needs to happen. > > I'll summarize my position as situations requiring special IP > Clearance procedures (i.e., not a simple patch or even a committer > making a huge change, but events such as bulk importing code that was > previously hosted publicly elsewhere) are infrequent enough events and > important enough risks that having a second set of eyes (from outside > of the receiving PMC) is in order. I don't have a strong opinion as > to whether IP Clearance for podlings and PMCs should be managed > separately or together. As long as it continues to be done via lazy > consensus, I also don't see burden. I'd noted that http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/httpd-mod_h2-clearance.html never had a corresponding clearance/acceptance thread at general@i.a.o, so it appears that the current instructions no longer match the methodology documented in-practice by our VP Legal. Jim, perhaps you can put together a change summary of what the actual incubator committee 'oversight' consists of, today? Current practice might already alleviate Greg's concerns.
