Stian's comment that the individual members of the IPMC be consulted simply due to their encountering IP issues more often is a very nice way to put it.
My only small edit would be to not mention a -1 vote, but just to say "any objection or suggestion raised on the IPMC list should be considered seriously". The only remaining problem is that the IPMC general list is a very busy list. Increasing traffic to it is a downside risk. On the other hand, gaining access to the IPMC's experience is an upside. I don't think we can say with great confidence exactly how that balance turns out, but I would suggest that we start with a stance of offering to help. On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote: > So perhaps the clarification (beyond removing SVN reference) would be that > IPMC just records the IP clearance documents for TLPs, and each clearance > mentioned on incubator list gives a possibility to get insight from IPMC > members who do IP clearance more often than each TLP on its own. > > However this could not be subject to an IPMC vote, the incubator plays more > of a registrar role. > > Obviously any -1 vote from IPMC should be considered by the TLP just like > on their own lists, but ultimately the decision could be the TLPs, which > might have to consult legal (which would look at what the incubator said). > > My £0.014. :) > On 8 Mar 2016 16:44, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > This has not been formally or officially requested and/or demanded > > by the Incubator to Legal Affairs. > > > > W/ my legal affairs hat on, I am not going to "take away" > > responsibility from a PMC unless it is required or asked > > or demanded of Legal Affairs. As of right now, this responsibility > > is still the IPMCs until changed. > > > > > On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:45 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > Just to follow up on this thread, were the changes ever completed? > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:20 PM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey < > > mar...@rectangular.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament < > johndam...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to be responsible. > > >> We > > >>>>> just need a new process defined. > > >>>> > > >>>> Actually, since the Incubator continues to receive criticism for its > > >>>> role in IP Clearance, I specifically request that the Incubator be > > >>>> relieved of that role. If having the Incubator hold the power to > > >>>> "meddle" causes such alarm, the Board should find somebody else to > do > > >>>> this work. > > >>> > > >>> I don't think we should be looking to the Board directly for this, we > > >>> should be looking to Legal Affairs to reaffirm, adjust, or revoke > this > > >>> arrangement. > > >>> > > >> > > >> And Legal Affairs has tangential control over Incubator, but the board > > is > > >> responsible > > >> for the IPMC charter, so if you want to change the scope of this > > project, > > >> the board > > >> is the final arbiter. > > >> > > >> Some of this might be confusion over Incubator's role. From memory, > > >> incubator > > >> generally didn't 'vote' on incoming other PMC code bases, but > maintained > > >> the > > >> canonical list of imports (the format is this committee's creation and > > >> choice), > > >> and the general@i.a.o list was used to 'announce' the importation of > > >> external > > >> code bases. If someone at g@i.a.o noticed something amiss, they are > > >> always > > >> welcome to point out whatever IP provenance issue they perceive to a > > >> receiving > > >> committee (often the IPMC itself for incubating code bases). > > >> > > >> If we trust the importing PMC to understand IP provenance, which we do > > >> because > > >> each of them maintain code bases, than this whole issue of IPMC > > non-voting > > >> vs. record keeping becomes much simpler. Since the IPMC is good at > > >> specific > > >> things, such as recording entry to the ASF, it still seems like a > smart > > >> place for > > >> the records. The alternative seems like adding a converse to the > attic > > >> project, > > >> perhaps we could title it Apache Doormat? > > >> > > >>> We have enough to worry about with our primary responsibility of > > >>>> incubating podlings. We don't need more reasons for powers-that-be > to > > >>>> give us grief. > > >>> > > >>> The powers that be (a.k.a., the board) either need to reinstate Jim > as > > >>> VP of Affairs or find a replacement, and then hold that individual > > >>> (and associated committee) accountable for revisiting this issue. > > >>> > > >> > > >> That's extra confusing, I don't see where in the prior meeting minutes > > or > > >> any > > >> other ASF resources where there is not an active VP Legal Affairs? I > > think > > >> you are confusing process (act of resigning, recognition of a > > resignation, > > >> appointing a replacement) with the actual motivation for someone to > hold > > >> a role. > > >> > > >> You did a nice job of reinforcing Marvin's concern about > > micromanagement. > > >> Reading this statement above and the tone you used, I personally > > wouldn't > > >> be keen to serve as an officer under your directatorship. /boggle > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
