Greg, If I'm reading your email correctly, you're just saying that the Incubator is not responsible for processing IP Clearances in a lazy way. Projects should instead direct their IP clearance emails to <<something else>>.
That <<something else>> is TBD. John On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:17 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > [trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices] > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >... > > > What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month? > > > > Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP > clearance. And more importantly, to clarify that a PMC is not beholden to > the IPMC. > > > > Let me repeat what I just said. I don't believe I was being obtuse, > > but then again, you don't appear to have read what I wrote. > > > > I certainly read it, you weren't being obtuse :-) > > > > 1) I hope we can agree that an Officer of the corporation should be > > subject to the direction of the Legal Affairs committee. > > > > Agreed. > > >... > > > > My point is to make the document reflect the reality of our > organization. > > > > Reality is what is reflected on this page: > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ > > > > Click on any of the clearance documents. > > > > I don't know what you are smoking, but those documents are real. > > > > Of course. I didn't say "get rid of IP clearance". Please read my original > email, if you think otherwise. I just want to alter the published steps to > reflect that our TLPs are not beholden to the IPMC. We use the Incubator as > a location to record these things (which I find odd, but is a separate > discussion). > > >... > > Cheers, > -g >
