You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> on 2015/10/21 21:22:22 UTC
Short form IP clearance
Hey all,
On the following page:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
The process steps do not align with the intent described in the Preamble,
and some steps are not required. Specifically, steps 5, 7, and 8.
Step 5: the code will be imported *somewhere*; there is no reason for it to
be duplicated into the Incubator repository. The ASF simply requires
paperwork to acknowledge the propriety of that import, wherever it may be.
There isn't even a reason for a checksum.
Step 7: the Incubator has no prerogative over what the VP of an Apache
project does (or other Officers, for that matter). If a TLP wants some
code, then they can do so. And the representative of that TLP (the VP, an
Officer) is the one taking responsibility for their actions. The Incubator
has been a recording area, but that doesn't give it discretion over other
projects.
[ IMO, the recording should go somewhere identified by VP Legal Affairs,
and be entirely disconnected from the Incubator ]
Step 8: moot, once (7) is removed.
I'd like to modify the steps to reflect the above points.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
-g
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Stian's comment that the individual members of the IPMC be consulted simply
due to their encountering IP issues more often is a very nice way to put it.
My only small edit would be to not mention a -1 vote, but just to say "any
objection or suggestion raised on the IPMC list should be considered
seriously".
The only remaining problem is that the IPMC general list is a very busy
list. Increasing traffic to it is a downside risk. On the other hand,
gaining access to the IPMC's experience is an upside. I don't think we can
say with great confidence exactly how that balance turns out, but I would
suggest that we start with a stance of offering to help.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
wrote:
> So perhaps the clarification (beyond removing SVN reference) would be that
> IPMC just records the IP clearance documents for TLPs, and each clearance
> mentioned on incubator list gives a possibility to get insight from IPMC
> members who do IP clearance more often than each TLP on its own.
>
> However this could not be subject to an IPMC vote, the incubator plays more
> of a registrar role.
>
> Obviously any -1 vote from IPMC should be considered by the TLP just like
> on their own lists, but ultimately the decision could be the TLPs, which
> might have to consult legal (which would look at what the incubator said).
>
> My £0.014. :)
> On 8 Mar 2016 16:44, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 <jo...@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 <
> > marvin@rectangular.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <
> johndament@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
So perhaps the clarification (beyond removing SVN reference) would be that
IPMC just records the IP clearance documents for TLPs, and each clearance
mentioned on incubator list gives a possibility to get insight from IPMC
members who do IP clearance more often than each TLP on its own.
However this could not be subject to an IPMC vote, the incubator plays more
of a registrar role.
Obviously any -1 vote from IPMC should be considered by the TLP just like
on their own lists, but ultimately the decision could be the TLPs, which
might have to consult legal (which would look at what the incubator said).
My £0.014. :)
On 8 Mar 2016 16:44, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 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 <jo...@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 <
> marvin@rectangular.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
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 <jo...@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 <ma...@rectangular.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
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 <ma...@rectangular.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@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
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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 <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@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
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@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.
> 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.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@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.
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.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to be responsible. We
just need a new process defined.
On Oct 31, 2015 23:58, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I just believe that web page is incorrect -- that one PMC has no
> jurisdiction over another. Thus, the page needs to be fixed. That's the one
> thing I wanted, but it appears to be controversial.
>
> If the Legal Affairs Committee(*) wants a "second set of eyes", then fine
> ... but please clarify that under www.a.o/legal/ with
> instructions/clarification.
>
> Thanks,
> -g
>
> (*) I've been remiss in earlier emails, in who to ask -- decisions are made
> by the Board committee, who is chaired by VP Legal.
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
>...
> 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.
>
I just believe that web page is incorrect -- that one PMC has no
jurisdiction over another. Thus, the page needs to be fixed. That's the one
thing I wanted, but it appears to be controversial.
If the Legal Affairs Committee(*) wants a "second set of eyes", then fine
... but please clarify that under www.a.o/legal/ with
instructions/clarification.
Thanks,
-g
(*) I've been remiss in earlier emails, in who to ask -- decisions are made
by the Board committee, who is chaired by VP Legal.
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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 <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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.
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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.
> Thx,
> -g
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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.
Thx,
-g
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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.
With my Incubator hat on, I wouldn't mind having the Incubator's role in
non-podling IP-clearance removed -- it's a thankless burden, not a perk.
Removal would concentrate the Incubator's focus a bit more, which would be
helpful.
With my Member hat on, it would be good to explore what happens if the
Incubator's role goes away. I'm not sure how consistently review actually
happens here, though there is clearly some. But it's good that the people
preparing the IP Clearance documents have to post to a high-profile list like
general@incubator and run the risk of embarrassing themselves if they royally
screw it up. Take that threat of scrutiny away and quality will drop.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:03 AM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > So.... basically if someone attaches a patch to a JIRA, which becomes
> part
> > of our public mailing lists, we're good?
>
> If that code was all that poster's original work, not previously
> published elsewhere (particularly under a different license), then
> that's fine.
>
> If that code was previously developed elsewhere, had multiple
> contributors, and made available (particularly under a different
> license), then no.
>
> I'll also note that the goal of IP Clearance isn't to disallow such
> contributions, it is merely to make sure that we capture all of the
> relevant history (IP provenance) for posterity.
>
So then probably the more concise form is "the work was first developed as
a part of the ASF and not elsewhere."
A cursory read makes it sound partially like external contributions require
IP Clearance, but having this note makes it clearer.
>
> > Would github PR's fall under the same premise, since the contents of
> those
> > mails become public record?
>
> See above.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:51 AM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I think probably the better question is "which contributions require
> IP
> >> > Clearance"?
> >>
> >> "Any code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our
> >> public mailing lists must be processed like this, even if the external
> >> developer is already an ASF committer."
> >>
> >> Source: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >>
> >> At a minimum, the word "SVN" should be removed. Any other changes
> >> people feel are necessary?
> >>
> >> - Sam Ruby
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> So.... basically if someone attaches a patch to a JIRA, which becomes part
> of our public mailing lists, we're good?
If that code was all that poster's original work, not previously
published elsewhere (particularly under a different license), then
that's fine.
If that code was previously developed elsewhere, had multiple
contributors, and made available (particularly under a different
license), then no.
I'll also note that the goal of IP Clearance isn't to disallow such
contributions, it is merely to make sure that we capture all of the
relevant history (IP provenance) for posterity.
> Would github PR's fall under the same premise, since the contents of those
> mails become public record?
See above.
- Sam Ruby
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:51 AM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > I think probably the better question is "which contributions require IP
>> > Clearance"?
>>
>> "Any code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our
>> public mailing lists must be processed like this, even if the external
>> developer is already an ASF committer."
>>
>> Source: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>>
>> At a minimum, the word "SVN" should be removed. Any other changes
>> people feel are necessary?
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
So.... basically if someone attaches a patch to a JIRA, which becomes part
of our public mailing lists, we're good?
Would github PR's fall under the same premise, since the contents of those
mails become public record?
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:51 AM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > I think probably the better question is "which contributions require IP
> > Clearance"?
>
> "Any code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our
> public mailing lists must be processed like this, even if the external
> developer is already an ASF committer."
>
> Source: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>
> At a minimum, the word "SVN" should be removed. Any other changes
> people feel are necessary?
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:41 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think probably the better question is "which contributions require IP
> Clearance"?
"Any code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our
public mailing lists must be processed like this, even if the external
developer is already an ASF committer."
Source: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
At a minimum, the word "SVN" should be removed. Any other changes
people feel are necessary?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I think probably the better question is "which contributions require IP
Clearance"?
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:19 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 7:13 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Again my apologies for polluting this thread with tangential thoughts.
> >
> > Maybe I should start a new thread: "Is IP Clearance Optional?"
> >
>
> That would be a short one. My response would be No. :)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 7:13 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Again my apologies for polluting this thread with tangential thoughts.
>
> Maybe I should start a new thread: "Is IP Clearance Optional?"
>
That would be a short one. My response would be No. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
It certainly is not optional, and it would be very unfortunate if TLPs
thought so or are unaware. One of the reasons I'd prefer Legal to be the
clear owner. (But to be clear, that is separate from my original post)
On Oct 22, 2015 6:13 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again my apologies for polluting this thread with tangential thoughts.
>
> Maybe I should start a new thread: "Is IP Clearance Optional?"
>
> My point is that some projects seem to be diligent, while others do not --
> to the point that at times the IP Clearance process seems optional. I would
> expect the incubator ip clearance list to be a lot longer than it is, and
> have more entries especially from some big data projects that accept some
> very large "patches."
>
> I may be overly cautious, but it seems like there are some important legal
> concerns that are being overlooked.
>
> And I'm not trying to create more work for whatever ASF entity is charged
> with policing the process. ;)
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Apologies for potentially coming out of left field on this…
> >
> > hehe... I did too :-)
> >
> >
> >> But I think that IP clearance is currently a difficult road to travel,
> and
> >> I worry that we are graduating podlings that don’t even know when or
> how to
> >> go down that road. It’s all too easy to merge a github pull request
> without
> >> considering IP clearance.
> >>
> >> I’ll admit that I’m unclear on the policy, and try to err on the
> cautious
> >> side.
> >
> > I expect anybody unclear to simply ask. That happens all the time. We
> have
> > press@ to help people with questions about marketing and outreach. We
> have
> > trademarks@ for branding questions. We have legal-internal@ and
> > legal-discuss@ to ask questions about IP clearance (and other legal-ish
> > matters).
> >
> > We have a system of Trust and Independence for our TLPs. The (filed)
> forms
> > are there for a TLP to follow, to check off steps, etc. There is a guide
> > and a description on how to fill out and file the form. And what is
> needed.
> >
> > All good.
> >
> > My concern is the injection of the IPMC into the process, and subjugating
> > one TLP to its will. IMO, that just is not *possible/allowed* by the
> > structure we have set up at the ASF. Thus, step 5 needs some modification
> > and 7/8 need removal to align with the actual structure of the ASF.
> >
> >
> >> I’ve seen commits to TLP projects that made me think “WTF… how did this
> >> evade IP clearance?”.
> >>
> >> I may be overreacting, but it seems to me IP clearance is REALLY
> >> important, and I worry that it may be taken for granted.
> >
> > You say it yourself: commits come from out of the blue. Nobody
> > second-guesses a TLP's series of commits. Nobody second-guesses (say) the
> > trust network they have set up in a KEYS file for their release
> artifacts.
> > The "IP Clearance" process is already *more* controlling than other
> > policies that TLPs must follow.
> >
> > I'm not asking to omit the process, but (IMO) the notion that the IPMC
> has
> > control over our other projects is simply incorrect, so the doc needs
> > updating.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
Again my apologies for polluting this thread with tangential thoughts.
Maybe I should start a new thread: "Is IP Clearance Optional?"
My point is that some projects seem to be diligent, while others do not -- to the point that at times the IP Clearance process seems optional. I would expect the incubator ip clearance list to be a lot longer than it is, and have more entries especially from some big data projects that accept some very large "patches."
I may be overly cautious, but it seems like there are some important legal concerns that are being overlooked.
And I'm not trying to create more work for whatever ASF entity is charged with policing the process. ;)
-Taylor
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Apologies for potentially coming out of left field on this…
>
> hehe... I did too :-)
>
>
>> But I think that IP clearance is currently a difficult road to travel, and
>> I worry that we are graduating podlings that don’t even know when or how to
>> go down that road. It’s all too easy to merge a github pull request without
>> considering IP clearance.
>>
>> I’ll admit that I’m unclear on the policy, and try to err on the cautious
>> side.
>
> I expect anybody unclear to simply ask. That happens all the time. We have
> press@ to help people with questions about marketing and outreach. We have
> trademarks@ for branding questions. We have legal-internal@ and
> legal-discuss@ to ask questions about IP clearance (and other legal-ish
> matters).
>
> We have a system of Trust and Independence for our TLPs. The (filed) forms
> are there for a TLP to follow, to check off steps, etc. There is a guide
> and a description on how to fill out and file the form. And what is needed.
>
> All good.
>
> My concern is the injection of the IPMC into the process, and subjugating
> one TLP to its will. IMO, that just is not *possible/allowed* by the
> structure we have set up at the ASF. Thus, step 5 needs some modification
> and 7/8 need removal to align with the actual structure of the ASF.
>
>
>> I’ve seen commits to TLP projects that made me think “WTF… how did this
>> evade IP clearance?”.
>>
>> I may be overreacting, but it seems to me IP clearance is REALLY
>> important, and I worry that it may be taken for granted.
>
> You say it yourself: commits come from out of the blue. Nobody
> second-guesses a TLP's series of commits. Nobody second-guesses (say) the
> trust network they have set up in a KEYS file for their release artifacts.
> The "IP Clearance" process is already *more* controlling than other
> policies that TLPs must follow.
>
> I'm not asking to omit the process, but (IMO) the notion that the IPMC has
> control over our other projects is simply incorrect, so the doc needs
> updating.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies for potentially coming out of left field on this…
>
hehe... I did too :-)
> But I think that IP clearance is currently a difficult road to travel, and
> I worry that we are graduating podlings that don’t even know when or how to
> go down that road. It’s all too easy to merge a github pull request without
> considering IP clearance.
>
> I’ll admit that I’m unclear on the policy, and try to err on the cautious
> side.
>
I expect anybody unclear to simply ask. That happens all the time. We have
press@ to help people with questions about marketing and outreach. We have
trademarks@ for branding questions. We have legal-internal@ and
legal-discuss@ to ask questions about IP clearance (and other legal-ish
matters).
We have a system of Trust and Independence for our TLPs. The (filed) forms
are there for a TLP to follow, to check off steps, etc. There is a guide
and a description on how to fill out and file the form. And what is needed.
All good.
My concern is the injection of the IPMC into the process, and subjugating
one TLP to its will. IMO, that just is not *possible/allowed* by the
structure we have set up at the ASF. Thus, step 5 needs some modification
and 7/8 need removal to align with the actual structure of the ASF.
> I’ve seen commits to TLP projects that made me think “WTF… how did this
> evade IP clearance?”.
>
> I may be overreacting, but it seems to me IP clearance is REALLY
> important, and I worry that it may be taken for granted.
>
You say it yourself: commits come from out of the blue. Nobody
second-guesses a TLP's series of commits. Nobody second-guesses (say) the
trust network they have set up in a KEYS file for their release artifacts.
The "IP Clearance" process is already *more* controlling than other
policies that TLPs must follow.
I'm not asking to omit the process, but (IMO) the notion that the IPMC has
control over our other projects is simply incorrect, so the doc needs
updating.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
Apologies for potentially coming out of left field on this…
But I think that IP clearance is currently a difficult road to travel, and I worry that we are graduating podlings that don’t even know when or how to go down that road. It’s all too easy to merge a github pull request without considering IP clearance.
I’ll admit that I’m unclear on the policy, and try to err on the cautious side.
I’ve seen commits to TLP projects that made me think “WTF… how did this evade IP clearance?”.
I may be overreacting, but it seems to me IP clearance is REALLY important, and I worry that it may be taken for granted.
-Taylor
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:11 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a
>>> VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the Foundation in
>>> matters of that Project. The forms/recording are valid, so I haven't
>>> suggested changing that (tho I'd like to see them move under /legal/, I'm
>>> not fussed about their location).
>>>
>>> I would hope that a PMC includes a note in their report to the Board,
>> that
>>> they filed a clearance form. That is just natural reporting. But that is
>>> quite different from one TLP being subject to another TLP's vote (whether
>>> lazy consensus or not).
>>>
>>> There could certainly be an argument that a PMC needs to be
>> double-checked
>>> by $entity. But that kind of second-guessing means $entity needs to
>>> double-check all commits and all release artifacts. We trust PMCs to get
>>> their IP done correctly, as they work on their project and make releases.
>>>
>>
>> What you're saying makes a lot of sense. I've always questioned the
>> benefit of TLPs submitting IP Clearances to the incubator, but not
>> questioned it because they're so few and far between it's irrelevant.
>>
>
> I get a bit crazy-headed when I perceive the ASF encroaches on the
> independence of a TLP. This isn't really a case of the ASF imposing, but
> similar. In my view, the Incubator cannot impede/affect the independence of
> another TLP. Structurally. The Foundation creates each PMC as an
> individual, independent group. Thus, I believe a few of these steps are
> just incorrect. I'd like our documentation to reflect the reality of the
> independence of our TLPs.
>
> I would however pressure that podlings are not capable of completing this
>> on their own, and that they should continue to follow the processes defined
>> already. They have knowledgeable mentors, but we should generally note
>> that the IPMC as a whole is responsible for the podlings.
>>
>
> Absolutely! The referenced page (and the associated guide) explicitly state
> it is for existing projects only. (the language could be clarified as "TLP,
> not podling", but yeah: definitely not for podlings)
>
> Cheers,
> -g
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a
> > VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the Foundation in
> > matters of that Project. The forms/recording are valid, so I haven't
> > suggested changing that (tho I'd like to see them move under /legal/, I'm
> > not fussed about their location).
> >
> > I would hope that a PMC includes a note in their report to the Board,
> that
> > they filed a clearance form. That is just natural reporting. But that is
> > quite different from one TLP being subject to another TLP's vote (whether
> > lazy consensus or not).
> >
> > There could certainly be an argument that a PMC needs to be
> double-checked
> > by $entity. But that kind of second-guessing means $entity needs to
> > double-check all commits and all release artifacts. We trust PMCs to get
> > their IP done correctly, as they work on their project and make releases.
> >
>
> What you're saying makes a lot of sense. I've always questioned the
> benefit of TLPs submitting IP Clearances to the incubator, but not
> questioned it because they're so few and far between it's irrelevant.
>
I get a bit crazy-headed when I perceive the ASF encroaches on the
independence of a TLP. This isn't really a case of the ASF imposing, but
similar. In my view, the Incubator cannot impede/affect the independence of
another TLP. Structurally. The Foundation creates each PMC as an
individual, independent group. Thus, I believe a few of these steps are
just incorrect. I'd like our documentation to reflect the reality of the
independence of our TLPs.
I would however pressure that podlings are not capable of completing this
> on their own, and that they should continue to follow the processes defined
> already. They have knowledgeable mentors, but we should generally note
> that the IPMC as a whole is responsible for the podlings.
>
Absolutely! The referenced page (and the associated guide) explicitly state
it is for existing projects only. (the language could be clarified as "TLP,
not podling", but yeah: definitely not for podlings)
Cheers,
-g
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a
> VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the Foundation in
> matters of that Project. The forms/recording are valid, so I haven't
> suggested changing that (tho I'd like to see them move under /legal/, I'm
> not fussed about their location).
>
> I would hope that a PMC includes a note in their report to the Board, that
> they filed a clearance form. That is just natural reporting. But that is
> quite different from one TLP being subject to another TLP's vote (whether
> lazy consensus or not).
>
> There could certainly be an argument that a PMC needs to be double-checked
> by $entity. But that kind of second-guessing means $entity needs to
> double-check all commits and all release artifacts. We trust PMCs to get
> their IP done correctly, as they work on their project and make releases.
>
What you're saying makes a lot of sense. I've always questioned the
benefit of TLPs submitting IP Clearances to the incubator, but not
questioned it because they're so few and far between it's irrelevant.
I would however pressure that podlings are not capable of completing this
on their own, and that they should continue to follow the processes defined
already. They have knowledgeable mentors, but we should generally note
that the IPMC as a whole is responsible for the podlings.
John
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:28 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Greg,
> >
> > If I'm reading your email correctly, you're just saying that the
> Incubator
> > is not responsible for processing IP Clearances in a lazy way. Projects
> > should instead direct their IP clearance emails to <<something else>>.
> >
> > That <<something else>> is TBD.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:17 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices]
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >...
> > >
> > > > What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP
> > > clearance. And more importantly, to clarify that a PMC is not beholden
> to
> > > the IPMC.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Let me repeat what I just said. I don't believe I was being obtuse,
> > > > but then again, you don't appear to have read what I wrote.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I certainly read it, you weren't being obtuse :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1) I hope we can agree that an Officer of the corporation should be
> > > > subject to the direction of the Legal Affairs committee.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > >...
> > >
> > > > > My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our
> > > organization.
> > > >
> > > > Reality is what is reflected on this page:
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> > > >
> > > > Click on any of the clearance documents.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what you are smoking, but those documents are real.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course. I didn't say "get rid of IP clearance". Please read my
> > original
> > > email, if you think otherwise. I just want to alter the published steps
> > to
> > > reflect that our TLPs are not beholden to the IPMC. We use the
> Incubator
> > as
> > > a location to record these things (which I find odd, but is a separate
> > > discussion).
> > >
> > > >...
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -g
> > >
> >
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a
VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the Foundation in
matters of that Project. The forms/recording are valid, so I haven't
suggested changing that (tho I'd like to see them move under /legal/, I'm
not fussed about their location).
I would hope that a PMC includes a note in their report to the Board, that
they filed a clearance form. That is just natural reporting. But that is
quite different from one TLP being subject to another TLP's vote (whether
lazy consensus or not).
There could certainly be an argument that a PMC needs to be double-checked
by $entity. But that kind of second-guessing means $entity needs to
double-check all commits and all release artifacts. We trust PMCs to get
their IP done correctly, as they work on their project and make releases.
Cheers,
-g
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:28 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Greg,
>
> If I'm reading your email correctly, you're just saying that the Incubator
> is not responsible for processing IP Clearances in a lazy way. Projects
> should instead direct their IP clearance emails to <<something else>>.
>
> That <<something else>> is TBD.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:17 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices]
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> > >...
> >
> > > What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month?
> > >
> >
> > Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP
> > clearance. And more importantly, to clarify that a PMC is not beholden to
> > the IPMC.
> >
> >
> > > Let me repeat what I just said. I don't believe I was being obtuse,
> > > but then again, you don't appear to have read what I wrote.
> > >
> >
> > I certainly read it, you weren't being obtuse :-)
> >
> >
> > > 1) I hope we can agree that an Officer of the corporation should be
> > > subject to the direction of the Legal Affairs committee.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >...
> >
> > > > My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our
> > organization.
> > >
> > > Reality is what is reflected on this page:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> > >
> > > Click on any of the clearance documents.
> > >
> > > I don't know what you are smoking, but those documents are real.
> > >
> >
> > Of course. I didn't say "get rid of IP clearance". Please read my
> original
> > email, if you think otherwise. I just want to alter the published steps
> to
> > reflect that our TLPs are not beholden to the IPMC. We use the Incubator
> as
> > a location to record these things (which I find odd, but is a separate
> > discussion).
> >
> > >...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Greg,
If I'm reading your email correctly, you're just saying that the Incubator
is not responsible for processing IP Clearances in a lazy way. Projects
should instead direct their IP clearance emails to <<something else>>.
That <<something else>> is TBD.
John
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:17 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices]
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >...
>
> > What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month?
> >
>
> Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP
> clearance. And more importantly, to clarify that a PMC is not beholden to
> the IPMC.
>
>
> > Let me repeat what I just said. I don't believe I was being obtuse,
> > but then again, you don't appear to have read what I wrote.
> >
>
> I certainly read it, you weren't being obtuse :-)
>
>
> > 1) I hope we can agree that an Officer of the corporation should be
> > subject to the direction of the Legal Affairs committee.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
> >...
>
> > > My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our
> organization.
> >
> > Reality is what is reflected on this page:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >
> > Click on any of the clearance documents.
> >
> > I don't know what you are smoking, but those documents are real.
> >
>
> Of course. I didn't say "get rid of IP clearance". Please read my original
> email, if you think otherwise. I just want to alter the published steps to
> reflect that our TLPs are not beholden to the IPMC. We use the Incubator as
> a location to record these things (which I find odd, but is a separate
> discussion).
>
> >...
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
[trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices]
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>...
> What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month?
>
Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP
clearance. And more importantly, to clarify that a PMC is not beholden to
the IPMC.
> Let me repeat what I just said. I don't believe I was being obtuse,
> but then again, you don't appear to have read what I wrote.
>
I certainly read it, you weren't being obtuse :-)
> 1) I hope we can agree that an Officer of the corporation should be
> subject to the direction of the Legal Affairs committee.
>
Agreed.
>...
> > My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our organization.
>
> Reality is what is reflected on this page:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>
> Click on any of the clearance documents.
>
> I don't know what you are smoking, but those documents are real.
>
Of course. I didn't say "get rid of IP clearance". Please read my original
email, if you think otherwise. I just want to alter the published steps to
reflect that our TLPs are not beholden to the IPMC. We use the Incubator as
a location to record these things (which I find odd, but is a separate
discussion).
>...
Cheers,
-g
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > On the following page:
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>> >
>> > The process steps do not align with the intent described in the Preamble,
>> > and some steps are not required. Specifically, steps 5, 7, and 8.
>> >
>> > Step 5: the code will be imported *somewhere*; there is no reason for it
>> to
>> > be duplicated into the Incubator repository. The ASF simply requires
>> > paperwork to acknowledge the propriety of that import, wherever it may
>> be.
>> > There isn't even a reason for a checksum.
>> >
>> > Step 7: the Incubator has no prerogative over what the VP of an Apache
>> > project does (or other Officers, for that matter). If a TLP wants some
>> > code, then they can do so. And the representative of that TLP (the VP, an
>> > Officer) is the one taking responsibility for their actions. The
>> Incubator
>> > has been a recording area, but that doesn't give it discretion over other
>> > projects.
>> > [ IMO, the recording should go somewhere identified by VP Legal Affairs,
>> > and be entirely disconnected from the Incubator ]
>>
>> Just some historical perspective (from the previous VP Legal Affairs,
>> though this predates my having that role), IP clearance is something
>> that is rarely done on a PMC level so it is something that most
>> individual PMCs don't have much experience with; at a foundation level
>> it is done frequently and primarily by the incubator. Hence the VP of
>> Legal Affairs (my predecessor and then unchanged by myself) designated
>> that the Incubator have this role.
>>
>> > Step 8: moot, once (7) is removed.
>> >
>> > I'd like to modify the steps to reflect the above points.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> As far as I can tell, it has been working without issue, where lazy
>> consensus is key to making it work smoothly. So I'm -1 on fixing
>> something that isn't broke.
>
> It *is* broken. An Officer of the corporation should not be subject to the
> will of the IPMC.
What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month?
Let me repeat what I just said. I don't believe I was being obtuse,
but then again, you don't appear to have read what I wrote.
1) I hope we can agree that an Officer of the corporation should be
subject to the direction of the Legal Affairs committee.
2) When I first got that particular job, I'll admit that the division
of labor seemed a little... peculiar. But when I investigated, the
argument made sense, so I went with it. If you don't like it, perhaps
your beef is with the current VP of Legal. If you want to make an
argument that it is more efficient to who specialize in IP clearance
to split their time between two committees, go for it. But the
process isn't broken simply because you don't like the color of the
hat that is being worn by the person or people doing the job.
Recapping: it is quite OK for VP of Legal to set policy. It is quite
OK for VP of Legal to delegate work. It is even quite OK for the
current VP of Legal to come to a different conclusion than the two
previous holders of that job. But what's not OK is...
> Gavin asked me how TLPs can import code, and I noted the IP clearance
> process. I looked at it, and found it to be wrong. Whichever TLP he was
> referring to should not be posting to general@. They should "file the
> paperwork" and call it done.
>
> I will even tell them to ignore those steps. If/when I ever do it with an
> Officer hat on, I'll ignore those steps.
... seriously uncool dude. What you are saying is that you know
better than both the VP of Legal and those that have been doing this
work without conflict for years. Not. Cool.
> My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our organization.
Reality is what is reflected on this page:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
Click on any of the clearance documents.
I don't know what you are smoking, but those documents are real.
As an added bonus, I encourage you to scan the following reports,
searching for the word "Incubator":
https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Legal_Affairs.html
I don't know whether you remember those reports, but I'll remind you
that you approved of each and every one of them. I specifically
discussed the division of labor, and followed up subsequently with
mentions of issues being forwarded.
> Cheers,
> -g
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > On the following page:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> >
> > The process steps do not align with the intent described in the Preamble,
> > and some steps are not required. Specifically, steps 5, 7, and 8.
> >
> > Step 5: the code will be imported *somewhere*; there is no reason for it
> to
> > be duplicated into the Incubator repository. The ASF simply requires
> > paperwork to acknowledge the propriety of that import, wherever it may
> be.
> > There isn't even a reason for a checksum.
> >
> > Step 7: the Incubator has no prerogative over what the VP of an Apache
> > project does (or other Officers, for that matter). If a TLP wants some
> > code, then they can do so. And the representative of that TLP (the VP, an
> > Officer) is the one taking responsibility for their actions. The
> Incubator
> > has been a recording area, but that doesn't give it discretion over other
> > projects.
> > [ IMO, the recording should go somewhere identified by VP Legal Affairs,
> > and be entirely disconnected from the Incubator ]
>
> Just some historical perspective (from the previous VP Legal Affairs,
> though this predates my having that role), IP clearance is something
> that is rarely done on a PMC level so it is something that most
> individual PMCs don't have much experience with; at a foundation level
> it is done frequently and primarily by the incubator. Hence the VP of
> Legal Affairs (my predecessor and then unchanged by myself) designated
> that the Incubator have this role.
>
> > Step 8: moot, once (7) is removed.
> >
> > I'd like to modify the steps to reflect the above points.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> As far as I can tell, it has been working without issue, where lazy
> consensus is key to making it work smoothly. So I'm -1 on fixing
> something that isn't broke.
>
It *is* broken. An Officer of the corporation should not be subject to the
will of the IPMC.
Gavin asked me how TLPs can import code, and I noted the IP clearance
process. I looked at it, and found it to be wrong. Whichever TLP he was
referring to should not be posting to general@. They should "file the
paperwork" and call it done.
I will even tell them to ignore those steps. If/when I ever do it with an
Officer hat on, I'll ignore those steps.
My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our organization.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Short form IP clearance
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> On the following page:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>
> The process steps do not align with the intent described in the Preamble,
> and some steps are not required. Specifically, steps 5, 7, and 8.
>
> Step 5: the code will be imported *somewhere*; there is no reason for it to
> be duplicated into the Incubator repository. The ASF simply requires
> paperwork to acknowledge the propriety of that import, wherever it may be.
> There isn't even a reason for a checksum.
>
> Step 7: the Incubator has no prerogative over what the VP of an Apache
> project does (or other Officers, for that matter). If a TLP wants some
> code, then they can do so. And the representative of that TLP (the VP, an
> Officer) is the one taking responsibility for their actions. The Incubator
> has been a recording area, but that doesn't give it discretion over other
> projects.
> [ IMO, the recording should go somewhere identified by VP Legal Affairs,
> and be entirely disconnected from the Incubator ]
Just some historical perspective (from the previous VP Legal Affairs,
though this predates my having that role), IP clearance is something
that is rarely done on a PMC level so it is something that most
individual PMCs don't have much experience with; at a foundation level
it is done frequently and primarily by the incubator. Hence the VP of
Legal Affairs (my predecessor and then unchanged by myself) designated
that the Incubator have this role.
> Step 8: moot, once (7) is removed.
>
> I'd like to modify the steps to reflect the above points.
>
> Thoughts?
As far as I can tell, it has been working without issue, where lazy
consensus is key to making it work smoothly. So I'm -1 on fixing
something that isn't broke.
Of course, as you say, the current VP of Legal Affairs could decide
that to change any of this; but I personally would see that at
variance with statements like "I have no desire to diminish the trust
we provide."
> Cheers,
> -g
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org