Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 7/15/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Everyone else that has been working with Dave is already an ASF
committer with a CLA on file at the ASF:
Trustin Lee
Dan Diephouse
Alex Karasulu
Yes let's get that software grant and a CLA from you Dave. Considering
the constituents of the project at safehaus we might be able to take up
Justin's earlier suggestion to possibly import the project: moving the
source, doco (confluence) and jira issues all at once to the ASF.
I think then a software grant and iCLA/CCLA plus a completed IP
Clearance form from an ASF Officer or Member is sufficient (see the IP
clearance template for the instructions on submission).
Depending upon how substantial the contributions were from the 3
ASFers, we might need Trustin, Dan, and Alex to also sign the software
grant too for AsyncWeb. The official policy is that we need software
grants signed from all developers - but if you guys just submitted
minor patches, that's probably not necessary - but if you developed
large chunks of AsyncWeb too, then a grant should be filed too even
though you have iCLAs on file.
Also note that there are no dependencies except on MINA.
Good.
Why don't we start the process of importing the project into Directory
for now as a MINA protocol example and get the MINA TLP proposal before
the board. With the move of MINA (and AsyncWeb) out of Directory,
AsyncWeb will be under a MINA TLP.
Honestly, I'd recommend flipping it: get MINA to be TLP first and then
move in AsyncWeb. There's no reason that AsyncWeb should land in the
Directory TLP and then move again in short-order. Ensure that the
submitted charter of MINA can incorporate AsyncWeb sufficiently. If
you submit the resolution ASAP, it'll make it into this month's Board
meeting (which is likely to be Wednesday, but that's not confirmed
yet). You can add Dave to the initial MINA PMC roster even though his
project isn't in just yet, too. Or, you can add him after the IP
paperwork is filed too - whatever works best.
I'm fine with this option as well. Let's give it a try. Do the rest of
you guys agree with this approach?
Or do you still see incubation as being necessary for AsyncWeb even
after getting a Grant and CLA from Dave?
I personally don't think so. We're talking about one committer
joining an already existing ASF project and that individual has
already worked with at least three other ASFers. If the legal
paperwork is filed (i.e. grant and iCLA/CCLA), I don't see the point
of 'full' Incubation. MINA's getting a chunk of code...the Incubator
PMC just needs to ensure that the legal paperwork is received first.
I'm asking these questions because then it will effect the way we write
the MINA proposal and whether or not we have to submit one for AsyncWeb.
How do we determine if this is a "boundry case" (quoting Noel's email)
for import rather than incubation?
It's a smell test. ;-) -- justin
Smells good :).
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
