On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> First of all, it really isn't a good thing that a major functionality >> was developed >> behind the firewall without any feedback from Apache Ignite community. >> >> So the first question I'd like to ask is this: what was the reason for this >> to be developed in such a way (and a follow up -- how can this be >> avoided in the future)? >> >> In my experience the only excuse for something like that is either a work >> that was done before the project joined ASF or work that was done under >> the draconian initial license agreement that can now be re-licensed under >> ASF. >> > > Completely agree and I would also personally prefer that all features are > developed in the open source community from the get go. In this case it was > not possible, as it initially was developed for one of the GridGain > customers and eventually evolved into something that could add value to the > community - hence the proposal to open source it.
Fair enough. > The code is not complete yet, and will require additional development > before it can become a part of an official Ignite release. I would prefer > that the remaining development can happen openly in the Ignite community. You can most definitely keep refactoring it -- but that'll have to happen in a branch. >> Which brings me to my next point: any addition to the project that doesn't >> go through the normal channels of small reversible commits that are easy >> to scrutinize for IP issues needs to be vetted. Depending on the size of >> the >> donation a separate SGA for ASF may be required. >> > > Correct. We will also be required to fill out the IP-Clearance form, > specifically designed for situations like this one, when a code is donated > into an existing code base: > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ > > >> >> Which brings me to my last point: where's the code? In order to have a >> factual conversation about the next steps in the process I'd like to be >> able to take a look at the code available to me under the Apache License. >> > > Hm... I guess you are right, the code needs to be provided in a public GIT > repository for review. To my knowledge this has not been done yet. > > >> On top of which, I would like to either have a full access to the commit >> and authorship history of this code OR a statement from the current >> overall copyright owner. >> > > Would a standard SGA suffice here? Is there a single copyright owner for the codebase? If there's is -- then yes you can file an SGA. > I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen > first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC > vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the > SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA right > away? You have to provide SGA and code base right away. Not making those available will preclude any meaningful discussion and most certainly will preclude a vote. Note that filing an SGA doesn't mean that the code will end up in ASF -- it means ASF (read its members) will have a right to scrutinize it without the fear of being exposed to questionable IP. In order to file an SGA you will have to make the code available. So here's a set of steps you need to do: 1. make code available some place on GitHub 2. file and SGA with ASF pointing at a tag in that repo 3. once both of these are done -- restart the discussion thread Thanks, Roman.
