This is clearer: Repository access
1. ASF projects must house their project code in ASF supported services (Subversion, GitBox). 2. Only people with an ICLA on file with Apache can create, edit, or update code housed within the ASF. There is no third-party access to create, edit, or delete files. 3. Apache software projects are open-source, so everyone has read access to all public code housed within the ASF. 4. Documentation is not code. Projects can host their documentation anywhere (such as on platforms like readthedocs and GitLab) and, if they choose, make them available to the world to create and edit pages. 5. However, if projects create and house their documentation inside the ASF, statement 2 applies to it. https://infra.apache.org/project-repo-policy.html There is no way around these ASF rules. We have to comply! ________________________________ From: Gregory Nutt <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 11:37 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Hosting Espressif HAL under Apache umbrella Alan is correct: "Hosting a non-ASF (Apache Software Foundation) code repository directly under official Apache infrastructure or version control organization is not allowed, as the ASF requires all official project code to be housed within its supported services and managed strictly under Apache committer policies." From AI Summary to Google search for "host non-ASF repository under Apache repository" (I was too lazy to hunt down the exact ASF documents, but you can do the same search for further info. ________________________________ From: Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 8:10 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Hosting Espressif HAL under Apache umbrella -1 As I explained before we cannot keep all HALs under ASF. BR, Alan On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 10:31 AM Tiago Medicci Serrano < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > After several discussions about HAL usage and community governance > [1][2][3], we (Espressif) propose hosting the current content of ` > github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty` > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> under an ASF-hosted > repository: ` > github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif>. > > *What does it mean:* > > - `esp-hal-3rdparty` content is already Apache 2.0 licensed. > - Espressif's CCLA allows us to contribute to a newly created > repository: we would create a PR on ` > github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif> with `esp-hal-3rdparty` > content. > - On the other hand, the org account on `github.com/nuttx` > <http://github.com/nuttx> is not > legally attached to Apache Software Foundation and, > consequently, to NuttX. > We can't directly contribute to it. > - NuttX's committers will have (just like `nuttx` and `nuttx-apps`) > write permissions to merge PRs on the newly created repository; > - Espressif will support the community with HAL usage, including a > comprehensive guide on how to update it so that any community member can > send patches for HAL. > - The discussion about HAL governance comes and goes, creating > instability in the NuttX community among members, developers, and > vendors. > This is no longer acceptable and needs settlement. That being said: > - `github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty` > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> will no longer receive > direct contributions for now. > - The newly created `apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` - if the community > agrees on that - will enable it to evolve and receive new > contributions > with more authority from the community. > - On the other hand, native development is always an option if the > community decides to keep supporting the devices on its own. > > *What it doesn't mean:* > > - It doesn't mean we are pushing NuttX to accept vendor HALs. > `esp-hal-3rdparty` is a reality, and we want to empower the community to > enable any NuttX member to directly work with it. > - The discussion of whether NuttX should or should not officially > approve vendor HALs is not related to this call for a vote. > > This seems to be a *Procedural Issue* [4], and a simple majority should be > applied. The community is encouraged to vote. PMC members have binding > votes. > > In that sense, my vote (Tiago) is *+1 *(binding) > > References: > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/gf4c3z4ds94lon91op4c6zmclqnwtvcf > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/nvnrf30jcdsxcrydmo2s95tdtlj8zvx9 > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/bg74qn14rs9qwson5lzt0xjb4fvbqh6j > [4] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting >
