On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Hi Benson, > > > On 2/26/13 2:17 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz >><bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> ...I'd like to suggest two changes: >>>> >>>> 1) Incubation is for new TLPs only. Turn off the "graduate-into-TLP" >>>>option. >>>> >>>> 2) Move the "short form" IP clearance to Legal Affairs, to clarify that >>>> we're only talking IP, rather than other concerns.... >>> >>> +1 to both, assuming Legal Affairs accepts 2) >> >>Guys, this was my point a few weeks ago, and the question I posed to >>the board. Did the board discuss it at the meeting, or is that part of >>the board meeting happening here? > > And it was my point during the whole HCatalog thing too. And Greg's when > it was > discussed during the board meeting. So yes, I think that's what we're > discussing > here. > >> >>I think that there are several hairs worth splitting here. >> >>1. Merging into a TLP is a possible outcome for a podling, even when >>the initial intention is to graduate independently. Even if we >>eliminate this as a starting intention, we should clarify how we >>expect this to happen. My prior email suggested a very low-overhead >>view of such events. > > It's my intention that that *should not be a possible outcome for a > podling*. > And just because we never said it explicitly (or maybe we did), that > doesn't > mean it was universally accepted either. You can gauge this by pure > numbers of > how many podlings have went this route (comparatively few).
Chris, I am now confused. If a podling bogs down, and then finds that there is a congenial home for the code in an existing project, what's your desire? My suggestion that the existing project just adopt them with no formal graduation? Something else? > >> >>2. If an existing TLP wants to incorporate an existing non-Apache >>community, the incubator _might_ might serve a useful role. Or, not. >>I'm also perfectly happy to tell that TLP to make a branch and grant >>some commit access and vote status as appropriate as things proceed, >>which is how I'd restate your views. > > Right, not sure the views need restating. I think they've been stated > fairly clearly > so far. > >> >>3. We do have a group of people with some minimal, observed, >>willingness to pay some attention to IP clearance. Legal affairs, >>well, is more of a talking-shop. So I'd expect Sam to want some >>helpers before he'd accept this. > > How about we start letting people talk for themselves? I sense an > inclination at least > in this email to not do that :) Sorry. Point taken. > > Cheers, > Chris > >> >> >> >>> >>> -Bertrand >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
