You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Gavin <ga...@16degrees.com.au> on 2009/06/09 23:01:20 UTC
Bypassing Incubator
Hi,
So, can someone tell me what the rules are regarding TLPs bringing in
subprojects directly to their TLP rather than coming through incubator?
Thanks
Gav...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Bypassing Incubator
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Gavin wrote:
>
> So, can someone tell me what the rules are regarding TLPs bringing in
> subprojects directly to their TLP rather than coming through incubator?
All significant incoming IP must be submitted to the incubator, see some
rare posts by Roy Fielding of his IP review on behalf of httpd.
Beyond incoming IP, it is the project's decision if a group of committers
and their effort need to be incubated, or if it's just a new group of
committers on existing apache code they are willing to handle, or if it's
just familiar committers on a new code base that fits within the project's
scope.
Things that don't fall into an existing project's scope must either be
submitted to incubator, or a new PMC resolution proposed to the board
(and there probably better be a good rational for why incubator should
not handle the creation of that effort, since the board created the
incubator for a good reason.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Bypassing Incubator
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Gavin<ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 15 June 2009 2:15 PM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Bypassing Incubator
>>
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> > Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> > > 1. Any substantial codebase needs at least IP Clearance in Incubator,
>> > > which is effectively just a record of where/when/how it came from, and
>> > > an opportunity for Incubator PMC members to have a look and make sure
>> > > that there is no flagrant IP issues.
>>
>> > I never understood this part. Why is the Incubator PMC any more
>> > qualified to decide if incoming code contains a "fragrant IP issue"
>> > than the destination TLP PMC? After all, the TLP PMC are doing that
>> > check continuously for the day to day contributions received.
>>
>> And they, the PMC responsible for clearing the IP, must record that
>> clearance in the Incubator, which was designated by the Board as the
>> repository for all of those IP clearance documents. That fact that there
>> are additional eyes is a bonus.
>>
>> --- Noel
>>
>
> Ok, so thanks everyone for your replies/clarifications.
>
> The cause of my question and confusion was I saw a request on Infra Jira for
> a mailing list and other infrastructure to be created for a Lucene
> Sub-Project OpenRelevance[1].
>
> So, now I get that is quite alright to do that. The only question remains is
> that of IP clearance. I haven't had time to take a closer look as of yet.
>
> Is that part of Incubators role, to police around the whole of the ASF
> projects looking for IP violations and stuff that stinks of 'hey that should
> come through Incubator' , or is not the job of Incubator because it has
> never touched Incubator so is someone elses job to look into if everything
> is kosha or otherwise ?
apache delegates power to projects to police themselves but relies
also on the collective eyes to ask the right questions
the incubator just acts as a clearing house for new communities and
external IP, helping them to become part of apache. the legal group is
the place to ask questions about potential IP issues.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Bypassing Incubator
Posted by Gavin <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> Sent: Monday, 15 June 2009 2:15 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Bypassing Incubator
>
> Tim Ellison wrote:
> > Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > > 1. Any substantial codebase needs at least IP Clearance in Incubator,
> > > which is effectively just a record of where/when/how it came from, and
> > > an opportunity for Incubator PMC members to have a look and make sure
> > > that there is no flagrant IP issues.
>
> > I never understood this part. Why is the Incubator PMC any more
> > qualified to decide if incoming code contains a "fragrant IP issue"
> > than the destination TLP PMC? After all, the TLP PMC are doing that
> > check continuously for the day to day contributions received.
>
> And they, the PMC responsible for clearing the IP, must record that
> clearance in the Incubator, which was designated by the Board as the
> repository for all of those IP clearance documents. That fact that there
> are additional eyes is a bonus.
>
> --- Noel
>
Ok, so thanks everyone for your replies/clarifications.
The cause of my question and confusion was I saw a request on Infra Jira for
a mailing list and other infrastructure to be created for a Lucene
Sub-Project OpenRelevance[1].
So, now I get that is quite alright to do that. The only question remains is
that of IP clearance. I haven't had time to take a closer look as of yet.
Is that part of Incubators role, to police around the whole of the ASF
projects looking for IP violations and stuff that stinks of 'hey that should
come through Incubator' , or is not the job of Incubator because it has
never touched Incubator so is someone elses job to look into if everything
is kosha or otherwise ?
Thanks
Gav...
[1] - URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2086
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Bypassing Incubator
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Tim Ellison<t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Gavin <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So, can someone tell me what the rules are regarding TLPs bringing in
>>> subprojects directly to their TLP rather than coming through incubator?
>>
>> To add to Bill's response, the general position is;
>>
>> 1. Any substantial codebase needs at least IP Clearance in Incubator,
>> which is effectively just a record of where/when/how it came from, and
>> an opportunity for Incubator PMC members to have a look and make sure
>> that there is no flagrant IP issues.
>
> I never understood this part. Why is the Incubator PMC any more
> qualified to decide if incoming code contains a "fragrant IP issue" than
> the destination TLP PMC?
the incubator PMC is more-or-less a subset of the membership
> After all, the TLP PMC are doing that check
> continuously for the day to day contributions received.
true
day to day contributions are covered by CLAs and section 5 of the
apache license. there are a few different wrinkles when importing code
from outside.
> I agree that more eyes are better, but then it would not be the
> Incubator PMC specifically that could catch such problems.
the PMC is supposed to review the documentation recorded and perform
basic due diligence (stuff like checking that the required grants have
been received by Apache)
but IMHO the main role is ensuring that there are people available to
answer questions about the process and to reach consensus on difficult
cases
it is useful to have the records in one format in one place. when this
was completely devolved to PMCs, forensic investigation was difficult.
this was a scaling worry (and a PITA when it needed to be done). the
two step process is more heavyweight (IMHO the current records
required should be streamlined) but gives more confidence all PMCs
understand how to import code and ensures that the public records are
easily available without the need to post mail to PMCs.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Bypassing Incubator
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Tim Ellison<t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> 1. Any substantial codebase needs at least IP Clearance in Incubator,
>> which is effectively just a record of where/when/how it came from, and
>> an opportunity for Incubator PMC members to have a look and make sure
>> that there is no flagrant IP issues.
>
> I never understood this part. Why is the Incubator PMC any more
> qualified to decide if incoming code contains a "fragrant IP issue" than
> the destination TLP PMC? After all, the TLP PMC are doing that check
> continuously for the day to day contributions received.
As I said, I think it is "an opportunity" and not necessary "a
responsibility", which I think should be at the "contributor"
primarily and "receiving TLP" secondarily.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Bypassing Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > 1. Any substantial codebase needs at least IP Clearance in Incubator,
> > which is effectively just a record of where/when/how it came from, and
> > an opportunity for Incubator PMC members to have a look and make sure
> > that there is no flagrant IP issues.
> I never understood this part. Why is the Incubator PMC any more
> qualified to decide if incoming code contains a "fragrant IP issue"
> than the destination TLP PMC? After all, the TLP PMC are doing that
> check continuously for the day to day contributions received.
And they, the PMC responsible for clearing the IP, must record that
clearance in the Incubator, which was designated by the Board as the
repository for all of those IP clearance documents. That fact that there
are additional eyes is a bonus.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Bypassing Incubator
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Gavin <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> So, can someone tell me what the rules are regarding TLPs bringing in
>> subprojects directly to their TLP rather than coming through incubator?
>
> To add to Bill's response, the general position is;
>
> 1. Any substantial codebase needs at least IP Clearance in Incubator,
> which is effectively just a record of where/when/how it came from, and
> an opportunity for Incubator PMC members to have a look and make sure
> that there is no flagrant IP issues.
I never understood this part. Why is the Incubator PMC any more
qualified to decide if incoming code contains a "fragrant IP issue" than
the destination TLP PMC? After all, the TLP PMC are doing that check
continuously for the day to day contributions received.
I agree that more eyes are better, but then it would not be the
Incubator PMC specifically that could catch such problems.
Regards,
Tim
> 2. If there is no additional 'community', for instance a single
> developer contributing the work into a project, and if the TLP PMC is
> comfortable to take on that codebase with or without such contributor
> as new committer, then that is Ok.
>
> 3. If the TLP is not interested in taking ownership of the codebase,
> but there are people within the TLP who are interested, then we
> recommend Incubation for the codebase+community even if the community
> is effectively just exising Apache committers (example Ace).
>
>
> Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Bypassing Incubator
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Gavin <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So, can someone tell me what the rules are regarding TLPs bringing in
> subprojects directly to their TLP rather than coming through incubator?
To add to Bill's response, the general position is;
1. Any substantial codebase needs at least IP Clearance in Incubator,
which is effectively just a record of where/when/how it came from, and
an opportunity for Incubator PMC members to have a look and make sure
that there is no flagrant IP issues.
2. If there is no additional 'community', for instance a single
developer contributing the work into a project, and if the TLP PMC is
comfortable to take on that codebase with or without such contributor
as new committer, then that is Ok.
3. If the TLP is not interested in taking ownership of the codebase,
but there are people within the TLP who are interested, then we
recommend Incubation for the codebase+community even if the community
is effectively just exising Apache committers (example Ace).
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org