Just to follow up on this thread, were the changes ever completed? On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:20 PM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 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 >
