Re: Short form IP clearance

[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

[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

[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

[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

["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

[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

[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

[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

["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.
>