On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:26 PM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:17 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Actually, 5/5 releases were done without the SGA. I'm not too worried > > about that for a number of reasons. > > > > The missing SGA was a defect in form, but not in substance. All of the > original code came from eBay who had a strong commitment to open sourcing > the code as evidenced by their placing the code on github under ALS. > > > > 1. We imported the full history from the original repository, the podling > > has built upon that instead of flattening the commit. > > > > ?! > > How is this a defect? It increases transparency. > The 4 items I listed aren't necessarily problems, just observations explaining why I'm not too concerned about there being a missed/late SGA. I actually prefer to see the full history imported for this exact reason. > > > > 2. The code coming in was already AL v2 compliant, so its really a > question > > as to whether releases were proper. > > > > Correct modulo the kinds of nits that tend to be surfaced by incubator > reviews. > > > > 3. From continuing to look into this, I also noticed we're missing an IP > > Clearance for the donation. In addition, there are 31 contributors per > > github, but the project proposal includes 8, the current roster shows 13 > + > > 5 mentors. So there is a potential gap related to IP. > > > > All of the original contributors to the code were employees of eBay and > thus, there was no IP problem from then. Later contributors may have been > from outside of the committer circles, but all commits were pulled into > Apache by a committer. The Apache push logs record exactly who brought the > commits into Apache while commits themselves record who actually authored > the original code. This is relatively standard for git operations at > Apache. > > > > > > 4. We've had prior cases where podlings failed to get the SGA done > properly > > before starting incubation. It happens, and as long as we can find an > SGA > > indicating the initial import we should be fine > > > We have that. > > > > Sorry, I feel like every time I dig into this I find something new. :/ > > > > I am sorry you get that impression. > > Other than the SGA (now filed, acknowledged by the project to be late in > obsequious subsequent prostrations) and the font license (covered by the > acks in the containing package and the overall project acknowledgements and > difficult to mark otherwise) what new actual issues have you uncovered? > > My own opinion is that each of the issue you just mentioned are actually > virtues rather than vices. > I think seeing a release from the podling that has no licensing issue would be great.
