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 <johndam...@apache.org> 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 <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> >>> 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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
