On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a > VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the Foundation in > matters of that Project. The forms/recording are valid, so I haven't > suggested changing that (tho I'd like to see them move under /legal/, I'm > not fussed about their location). > > I would hope that a PMC includes a note in their report to the Board, that > they filed a clearance form. That is just natural reporting. But that is > quite different from one TLP being subject to another TLP's vote (whether > lazy consensus or not). > > There could certainly be an argument that a PMC needs to be double-checked > by $entity. But that kind of second-guessing means $entity needs to > double-check all commits and all release artifacts. We trust PMCs to get > their IP done correctly, as they work on their project and make releases. >
What you're saying makes a lot of sense. I've always questioned the benefit of TLPs submitting IP Clearances to the incubator, but not questioned it because they're so few and far between it's irrelevant. I would however pressure that podlings are not capable of completing this on their own, and that they should continue to follow the processes defined already. They have knowledgeable mentors, but we should generally note that the IPMC as a whole is responsible for the podlings. John > > Cheers, > -g > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:28 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Greg, > > > > If I'm reading your email correctly, you're just saying that the > Incubator > > is not responsible for processing IP Clearances in a lazy way. Projects > > should instead direct their IP clearance emails to <<something else>>. > > > > That <<something else>> is TBD. > > > > John > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:17 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > [trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices] > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> > > wrote: > > > >... > > > > > > > What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month? > > > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP > > > clearance. And more importantly, to clarify that a PMC is not beholden > to > > > the IPMC. > > > > > > > > > > Let me repeat what I just said. I don't believe I was being obtuse, > > > > but then again, you don't appear to have read what I wrote. > > > > > > > > > > I certainly read it, you weren't being obtuse :-) > > > > > > > > > > 1) I hope we can agree that an Officer of the corporation should be > > > > subject to the direction of the Legal Affairs committee. > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > >... > > > > > > > > My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our > > > organization. > > > > > > > > Reality is what is reflected on this page: > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ > > > > > > > > Click on any of the clearance documents. > > > > > > > > I don't know what you are smoking, but those documents are real. > > > > > > > > > > Of course. I didn't say "get rid of IP clearance". Please read my > > original > > > email, if you think otherwise. I just want to alter the published steps > > to > > > reflect that our TLPs are not beholden to the IPMC. We use the > Incubator > > as > > > a location to record these things (which I find odd, but is a separate > > > discussion). > > > > > > >... > > > > > > Cheers, > > > -g > > > > > >
