Hi - Thanks to everyone for participating so far. I see that many feel that the IP Clearance being part of the Incubator for public recording purposes is in the interests of the Foundation.
The records at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html <http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html> are important. - The direction about new project’s in the box is inconsistent and does not get to the proper place. - If the process is not for podlings then why are there (incubating) projects in the table? - There is no instruction about where to add the entry and I see additions to both the top and the bottom of the table. The lefthand navigation has some dead links and the IP Clearance process could be made more prominent. A concern about having IP Clearance from a podling is if the podling is retired. If a podling has a new contribution after the contributions that are documented in the Podling Proposal then do they go through this process like a TLP or do they just record it? If a podling is asking for IP Clearance then I think that should NOT be by LAZY CONSENSUS. Regards, Dave > On Jun 5, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Dave, > >> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> Hi - >> >> I think that the IP Clearance process has become very much a bureaucratic >> process where the IPMC is contributing little of value. Very seldom is there >> any feedback provided. > > It is intended to be a bureaucratic process that is organized and run by the > PMC with oversight by the IPMC. > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html : > "The intent is to simply help to ensure, and record, that due diligence > (Software Grant, CLA, Corp CLA, license and dependencies) has been paid to > the incoming code" > "The receiving PMC is responsible for doing the work. The Incubator is simply > the repository of the needed information." > "Note that only lazy consensus is required." > >> >> (1) It is separate from the SGA process for new podlings, but it is similar >> in that the Secretary will record the SGA and/or CCLA. >> (2) The documentation is confusing about whether or not podlings need to >> follow it or not. > > The documentation at https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html > discusses Podling IP Clearance. > > The documentation at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html > discusses non-Podling IP Clearance. > > Perhaps a rewrite of either or both of these would be useful. Patches welcome. > >> (3) Top Level Projects are supposed to understand how to clear IP as that is >> a major part of the incubation process. If there are any questions the >> legal-discuss mailing list and JIRA are available. >> (4) The Incubator is already stretched to provide Mentoring to all of our >> Podlings and IP Clearance seems to be off topic and not really scalable. > > Wide visibility is one result of the process being performed under the > auspices of the incubator. Lazy consensus means that overworked IPMC members > do not need to be involved if they choose not to be. But they can still see > that a big code base is being proposed going directly to a TLP. > >> (5) Once a TLP graduates from the Incubator it seems regressive to have to >> go back unless there is a Community around the grant to be Incubated. That >> would lead to a Podling Proposal and not IP Clearance. >> >> I think that the IPMC should recommend to the Board that this recording >> process be fully moved to the Secretary. > > I'm afraid I don't see the problem that this change would solve. > >> >> Regards, >> Dave > > Craig L Russell > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
