Leo Simons wrote: > On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: >> Jeremy Boynes wrote: >> ... >>> I "vetoed" the codedump for two main reasons. The first is that the IP >>> clearance process is not being followed: there is no record of the >>> code >>> here >>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html >>> and there has been no vote by the Tuscany PPMC or Incubator PMC to >>> accept the code. >> >> Here's one clarification because I think this can be confusing for >> podlings, especially new ones. >> >> The ip clearance for the initial code import for a podling gets handled >> via some of the "Incubation work items" on the podling status page. >> Later imports of code developed outside Apache need to follow the ip >> process [1]. > > When Geir went through the motions of "initial" (not really, since we > started with no codE) imports for harmony, he filled out IP templates > for them. For triplesoup, I've been filling them out too. I find them > more clear, clean and detailed than the general "work items" tracking, eg > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/triplesoup-1-contribution- > mod_sparql.html > > the one thing that's a bit "different" is that the related VOTE is the > incubator voting to accept the project, but otherwise the form hold up > well.
Since there wasn't an initial code base for Harmony, I can't imagine how else it might have been handled, especially with contributions coming from a variety of contributors. Hmmmmm .... I suppose the podling status report could be made to handle multiple contributions by different entities, but an ip clearance form for each contribution seems a lot more straight forward. -jean --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]