On 3/19/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:26:04PM +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote:
<snip> > > 3 there is no indication the form which CLA's and CCLA's are relevant. > > this makes oversight difficult. > > > > PROPOSAL: the form should include official names (as listed in the > > foundation documents) for those donating the code. > > Hrmpf. Aren't official names supposed to be private? didn't know that > I think we have a > map of "nickname" -> "official name" which is somewhere private. I think > the rule should be that all non-official names should be registered in > that mapping. anyone know where this lives? > I think its kind-of cool the ASF allows you to use a pseudonym if you > really want to. sounds reasonable but this scenario did prove to be a problem. so i think that we need some way to link into the official documents. an email address would probably be good enough for individuals. is there any reason not to include the official name for corporations? > > 4 there is no tie to the actual donated software. this makes oversight > > difficult. > > > > PROPOSAL: the md5 for the donation should be listed on the form. the > > repository URL where the actual donated is/will be checked in should > > be listed. > > +1. Or the sha1, I think that is now best practice :-) > > > should this be in the incubator repository or in the project? > > As long as the policy documents where it is, then it should be ok. I'd > vote for incubator repo. +1 anyone care to suggest a suitable location in the incubator repository? > > 5 the VOTE from the project receiving the code is unnecessary and > > confusing. it serves no useful legal purpose and normal apache process > > can handle objections when the code is committed. > > > > PROPOSAL: scrap this requirement > > *shrug*. I like how it makes explicit that its a group decision (which > also implies you don't go sue the individual that did the commit if there > is ever a problem). the vote proved to be confusing in practice. the concensus seems to be +0 'yes but only if it's legal'. the legal oversight is supposed to be provided by the incubator pmc not the project where the code lands. this is probably a good reason why the donation should be initially committed into the incubator repository. it can then be yanked by anyone in incubator. alternatively, the code could be committed to a private repository since it's only there for the records. AIUI the commit should be safe enough since the execution will be done by an ASF official or member. processing a grant is an official ASF operation and the work is done on behalf of the foundation. anyone who knows more like to jump in here? > > so unless i hear any objections, i'll update the documents > > in a day or two... > > If you have more cycles available, you might want to look at the IP > clearance we've set up for Harmony - its worked rather well and is > probably about ready to be merged as appropriate (there's some stuff in > there about "authorized contributors" which we probably don't want nor > need in general) with the main incubator policies. unlikely ATM i'm afraid. might be able to get back to this once JCL 1.1 is finally released. perhaps we do need the "authorized contributors" recorded somewhere as a model for the next time... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
