Sounds like a good approach to me. -- dims
On 7/15/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 7/15/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Everyone else that has been working with Dave is already an ASF >> committer with a CLA on file at the ASF: >> >> Trustin Lee >> Dan Diephouse >> Alex Karasulu >> >> Yes let's get that software grant and a CLA from you Dave. Considering >> the constituents of the project at safehaus we might be able to take up >> Justin's earlier suggestion to possibly import the project: moving the >> source, doco (confluence) and jira issues all at once to the ASF. > > I think then a software grant and iCLA/CCLA plus a completed IP > Clearance form from an ASF Officer or Member is sufficient (see the IP > clearance template for the instructions on submission). > > Depending upon how substantial the contributions were from the 3 > ASFers, we might need Trustin, Dan, and Alex to also sign the software > grant too for AsyncWeb. The official policy is that we need software > grants signed from all developers - but if you guys just submitted > minor patches, that's probably not necessary - but if you developed > large chunks of AsyncWeb too, then a grant should be filed too even > though you have iCLAs on file. > >> Also note that there are no dependencies except on MINA. > > Good. > >> Why don't we start the process of importing the project into Directory >> for now as a MINA protocol example and get the MINA TLP proposal before >> the board. With the move of MINA (and AsyncWeb) out of Directory, >> AsyncWeb will be under a MINA TLP. > > Honestly, I'd recommend flipping it: get MINA to be TLP first and then > move in AsyncWeb. There's no reason that AsyncWeb should land in the > Directory TLP and then move again in short-order. Ensure that the > submitted charter of MINA can incorporate AsyncWeb sufficiently. If > you submit the resolution ASAP, it'll make it into this month's Board > meeting (which is likely to be Wednesday, but that's not confirmed > yet). You can add Dave to the initial MINA PMC roster even though his > project isn't in just yet, too. Or, you can add him after the IP > paperwork is filed too - whatever works best. I'm fine with this option as well. Let's give it a try. Do the rest of you guys agree with this approach? >> Or do you still see incubation as being necessary for AsyncWeb even >> after getting a Grant and CLA from Dave? > > I personally don't think so. We're talking about one committer > joining an already existing ASF project and that individual has > already worked with at least three other ASFers. If the legal > paperwork is filed (i.e. grant and iCLA/CCLA), I don't see the point > of 'full' Incubation. MINA's getting a chunk of code...the Incubator > PMC just needs to ensure that the legal paperwork is received first. > >> I'm asking these questions because then it will effect the way we write >> the MINA proposal and whether or not we have to submit one for AsyncWeb. >> >> How do we determine if this is a "boundry case" (quoting Noel's email) >> for import rather than incubation? > > It's a smell test. ;-) -- justin Smells good :). Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
