On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Greg Stein wrote: > The Board spoke about this topic for nearly 45 minutes yesterday at our > Board meeting. We started to come up with some guidelines for when a > project needs incubation, or when a PMC can directly handle it itself. We > need to work through that on the Board's mailing list for a bit, and then > we'll send out our official recommendation. > > One of the main points to make is that we *will* support PMCs doing some > "mild incubation", if you will. Specifically, when the incoming codebase > only needs some IP audit/checklist types of actions. The PMC Chair will be > required to do that personally, and then deliver the completed checklist > to the Incubator for filing/storage.
Can you and/or the board provide more information on how to determine if a project requires "mild" incubation or "not-mild" incubation? > The simple fact is that the PMCs used to "do this by themselves" and they > *screwed* it up. In what way was this "screwed up"? Are there/were there specific IP issues this refers to? > Therefore, the Incubator was created to ensure that we stopped having > these IP problems. Therefore, you also don't get a choice on handling > incoming codebases until the Board provides modified instructions to the > Incubator and the PMCs. > > Yes, that sucks, but IP concerns are #1 for the ASF. And we cannot allow > what used to happen before the Incubator was created. Note that we still > still IP problems here and there, but that is based on the failures of the > PMCs to step in and take action when the committers blithely create > problems. Some PMCs are more rigorous than others, thankfully. +1 on not having IP problems. > -g - Rod <http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
