On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 3/16/07, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hi, On 3/16/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is everyone in ASF willing to be comfortable with the ASF stamp of > approval on a project that might still be in the process of vetting > code provenance, or still checking licenses, but chooses to do an > incubating release anyway?I don't think that's the question. The question I see is: is everyonein the ASF willing to agree that the Incubator PMC has sufficient oversight processes in place when approving podling releases? If so, great, we're done, and if not, we need to fix the Incubator release vetting process.If we buy into this (and I'm not totally convinced, but it is a separate question), then we're still not done ... we have a bunch of other hoops that we still force on incubating podlings that should be removed as well.
From what I've seen of the oversight provided by the incubator for podling releases, IP issues and licenses are not "being checked" but "have been checked".
I don't know to what other hoops you might be referring. The podling is assumed to know what it is doing regarding content, functionality, etc. Everything done by the incubator to vet a release is done to protect Apache, such as appropriate licenses, notices, etc.
the other Craig
Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
