Hi -
I think that we are mixing together a few events in a podling's lifecycle.
Since I published a plan to update the status process and am just about to
implement I think we should discuss events in a modern way since much of the
language is a decade or more old and we are each trying to find the best
language for modern times which includes our collective thoughts and
understanding.
(1) Start Date - Podling Proposal is Accepted.
(2) Podlings.xml file updated.
(3) Status page created.
(Not needed in improvement plan where the correct dates and events will be
maintained through Whimsy Roster/Status pages)
(4) LDAP and Mailing lists created by Infra.
(5) PPMC Member onboarding - ICLA, Apache accounts, ML signup.
(6) Codebase onboarding - assuming that all podling’s continue to fit the
GitHub development model.
- SGA (or proof that CCLA/ICLA in some combination are appropriate.)
- List of Repositories Cleared - This is NEW and providing this will be very
helpful to both the podling and INFRA.
- Different repositories may come under different SGAs (or ICLA/CCLA)
- Date the repository is moved (or copied) and accepted by the PPMC.
(7) Date that the donated code has been changed.
- AL2 headers
- Copyrights removed.
(8) First fully compliant release
- Date when the IPMC agrees that podling is making compliant releases.
(9) News - releases, added committers, added PPMC members, (added repositories?)
Notes on (6):
(a) Providing clearance for each repository will provide INFRA with a clear
place to confirm that GitHub JIRA requests are valid.
(b) Provide a clear view to the status of repositories.
Does this breakdown help us focus on the code versus committer requirements?
> On May 15, 2019, at 1:28 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 06:55, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> I do not like the words "transfer rights". It could be interpreted as
>> transfer of copyright. Copyright of existing code is not transferred to the
>> ASF, AIUI. How about "Check to make sure that an SGA or CCLA has been
>> received.”
At the point the SGA is granted and the code repository moved over one of the
first actions to add the AL2 headers where appropriate. The donation may be
relicensed from proprietary to AL2. At this time the copyright line is
typically removed.
It is up to the donating companies what they do with their copyright to their
copy.
>>
>> I don't like hypotheticals, but I can imagine some individual starting a
>> project on GitHub, has only a few files already under ALv2, and gets a
>> project going at the ASF? Wouldn't we accept those few files under his ICLA
>> and not require an SGA or CCLA?
Yes. See 6 above.
>>
>> I'd suggest dropping the second sentence ("it is necessary to transfer
>> rights..."). AIUI, it is only necessary to grant a perpetual license to the
>> ASF.
>
> Also, the CCLA is not required, and is not an alternative to the SGA
> -- as may perhaps be inferred by some from the phrase "(SGA or CCLA)"
>
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-faq.html#cclas-not-required
> <https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-faq.html#cclas-not-required>
It is between the individuals and their employers if they can contribute. In
the rare case where a company might not grant the donation via our SGA, but
would with an CCLA, then we should be flexible. The question is where that
decision should be made and how it is memorialized.
>
>> I like your third sentence.
>>
>> HTH,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 5/13/19, 5:28 PM, "Craig Russell" <apache....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Copyright section of the podling status page says "Check and make
>> sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been received. It is
>> only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the core code, and any
>> new code produced by the project.".
>>
>> I'd propose a change:
>>
>> "Check to make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been
>> received (SGA or CCLA). It is necessary to transfer rights for any existing
>> package and core code. Any new code produced by the project must be covered
>> by ICLA."
>>
>> This change is proposed because it might not be obvious to everyone what
>> "the papers that transfer rights" are. And new code produced must be
>> committed by a person who has filed an ICLA.
I think that we set this language in the documentation. The status page is both
documentation and status.
Shall we iterate on the above list and patch the cookbook on the site?
Regards,
Dave
>>
>> Patches welcome.
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> c...@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
>
