IP Clearance? NAK

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps you are signing up to do that ip-clearance, since it doesn't
>> seem to be coming from the committer.
> 
> IP clearance for an existing committer is BULLSHIT.  I already cleared
> that with Legal when I was chair of this project.

Somehow, having chaired the HTTP Server project for 2 years, I had missed
the memo.  This information is not being communicated.  Thank you for
enlightening me, our chair Eric, and the rest of the TLP communities.

The HTTP Server Project will proceed to ignore the IP Clearance process
laid out by the Incubator for all incoming contributions from any actual
project committer or their employer, until informed otherwise by the
President of the foundation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>]

On Mar 1, 2012, at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 3/1/2012 9:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 
>> I don't know what statement Roy is referring to, so I won't challenge
>> it directly.  Instead I will ask that people work together to find out
>> what processes are right for the ASF at this point in time, even if
>> these processes are different than the ones that we used 10, 5, or
>> even just 2 years ago.
> 
> In this specific case, I trust Roy to inform us if it meets the narrow
> response he received with respect to a single committer's creation on
> behalf of their employer (as we understand this submission) or if it
> has some additional considerations.

My understanding is that the author of the code in question is an
existing committer, has an iCLA on file, says he authored it, and
says he has permission from the copyright owner to contribute the code
to the ASF.  He has made that statement in both the public list
(archived) and the actual commit.

That's all we need for contributions of code from committers to an
existing TLP.  It can be five lines of code or five million lines of code.
We trust our committers.

I know that the incubator occasionally thinks it owns the process for
all contributions of code at Apache.  I don't care.  When code comes
from a source that has not yet signed a contributors agreement with
Apache, then we should have it go through Incubator to be sure that
some paperwork gets signed.  But when it comes from an existing
committer who says he has permission to contribute under his own iCLA,
we already have the signed agreement on file and the contributor is
entirely responsible for the accuracy of his own statements.  There
is no need for incubator to be involved.  If there was any such need,
then every single commit from every contributor would need to go
through the same process.

There is no need to waste the contributor's time, nor the time of the
project chair, with useless procedural nonsense that has no value
whatsoever beyond the statements already made by the contributor.
We have several layers of contributor licensing to cover our ass, and
if for some bizarre reason that is not enough then I am absolutely
certain having another document in incubator summarizing it won't help.

....Roy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 3/1/2012 9:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> I don't know what statement Roy is referring to, so I won't challenge
> it directly.  Instead I will ask that people work together to find out
> what processes are right for the ASF at this point in time, even if
> these processes are different than the ones that we used 10, 5, or
> even just 2 years ago.

In this specific case, I trust Roy to inform us if it meets the narrow
response he received with respect to a single committer's creation on
behalf of their employer (as we understand this submission) or if it
has some additional considerations.

Given that the President of the foundation hasn't objected for two
months to these code imports without IP clearance, obviously the
project is in the right.  If you don't agree the committee or board
would take that up with the President.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 9:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
>> thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
>> form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they
>> *should*, along the lines Roy suggests in that thread.
>
> Greg; Roy just stated, it's not applicable and invalid.

Please don't take a statement out of context and extrapolate from that
that a long standing policy is entirely not applicable and invalid.

If you interpret Roy's statement narrowly - i.e., that a contribution
that a committer claims is 100% their original work - needs no further
clearance, then that likely is something over which we can find
consensus.

If you interpret Roy's statement too liberally - i.e. that groups of
committers don't need to collaborate with the oversight of a PMC,
track who has contributed or who has not, or do their work using of
ASF infrastructure; for all we care they can simply reimport their
work wholesale when then wish to make an ASF release - then that is
not likely to fly.

I don't know what statement Roy is referring to, so I won't challenge
it directly.  Instead I will ask that people work together to find out
what processes are right for the ASF at this point in time, even if
these processes are different than the ones that we used 10, 5, or
even just 2 years ago.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org>]

On 3/1/2012 9:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> 
> Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
> thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
> form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they
> *should*, along the lines Roy suggests in that thread.

Greg; Roy just stated, it's not applicable and invalid.

Ergo the project will ignore this "process" until either 1. the Legal
Committee or 2. the ASF President inform the HTTP project of specific
external steps that it must follow with respect to IP intake offered by
committers (and as proxy for their employers).

Incubator isn't actually given any jurisdiction over projects.  Legal
committee is... and Roy states that Legal cleared HTTP from following
this (quoting) BULLSHIT process in respect to committer contributions.

I am getting incredibly frustrated with the fact that three founders and
current board members have no common institutional memory.  You three
probably should just hang up the hats already if you can't agree for even
a single day on a recollection any particular precedent. I might be passive
aggressive some days, but I'm not a psychopathic schizophrenic as the three
headed RoyGregJim beast is.

In the meantime, there is a project to run.  Roy acting as a former
officer has informed Eric, the current chair, and myself, a former chair,
of specific internal and official communication with the legal committee
that this process is not applicable to contributions from committers, and
we will respect Roy's recollection as former Chair until we hear otherwise
from an officer (not a schizo Director) of the foundation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org>]

On 3/1/2012 9:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> 
> Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
> thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
> form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they
> *should*, along the lines Roy suggests in that thread.

Greg; Roy just stated, it's not applicable and invalid.

Ergo the project will ignore this "process" until either 1. the Legal
Committee or 2. the ASF President inform the HTTP project of specific
external steps that it must follow with respect to IP intake offered by
committers (and as proxy for their employers).

Incubator isn't actually given any jurisdiction over projects.  Legal
committee is... and Roy states that Legal cleared HTTP from following
this (quoting) BULLSHIT process in respect to committer contributions.

I am getting incredibly frustrated with the fact that three founders and
current board members have no common institutional memory.  You three
probably should just hang up the hats already if you can't agree for even
a single day on a recollection any particular precedent. I might be passive
aggressive some days, but I'm not a psychopathic schizophrenic as the three
headed RoyGregJim beast is.

In the meantime, there is a project to run.  Roy acting as a former
officer has informed Eric, the current chair, and myself, a former chair,
of specific internal and official communication with the legal committee
that this process is not applicable to contributions from committers, and
we will respect Roy's recollection as former Chair until we hear otherwise
from an officer (not a schizo Director) of the foundation.

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 20:52, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you are signing up to do that ip-clearance, since it doesn't
>>> seem to be coming from the committer.
>>
>> IP clearance for an existing committer is BULLSHIT.  I already cleared
>> that with Legal when I was chair of this project.
>
> Somehow, having chaired the HTTP Server project for 2 years, I had missed
> the memo.  This information is not being communicated.  Thank you for
> enlightening me, our chair Eric, and the rest of the TLP communities.
>
> The HTTP Server Project will proceed to ignore the IP Clearance process
> laid out by the Incubator for all incoming contributions from any actual
> project committer or their employer, until informed otherwise by the
> President of the foundation.

Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they
*should*, along the lines Roy suggests in that thread.

The HTTP PMC cannot ignore the clearance process. But we do need to
fix the process. And we don't need your crap.

-g

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 20:52, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you are signing up to do that ip-clearance, since it doesn't
>>> seem to be coming from the committer.
>>
>> IP clearance for an existing committer is BULLSHIT.  I already cleared
>> that with Legal when I was chair of this project.
>
> Somehow, having chaired the HTTP Server project for 2 years, I had missed
> the memo.  This information is not being communicated.  Thank you for
> enlightening me, our chair Eric, and the rest of the TLP communities.
>
> The HTTP Server Project will proceed to ignore the IP Clearance process
> laid out by the Incubator for all incoming contributions from any actual
> project committer or their employer, until informed otherwise by the
> President of the foundation.

Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they
*should*, along the lines Roy suggests in that thread.

The HTTP PMC cannot ignore the clearance process. But we do need to
fix the process. And we don't need your crap.

-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org