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
