On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are signing up to do that ip-clearance, since it doesn't
>> seem to be coming from the committer.
>
> IP clearance for an existing committer is BULLSHIT. I already cleared
> that
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 20:52, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you are signing up to do that ip-clearance, since it doesn't
>>> seem to be coming from the committer.
>>
>> IP clearance
On 3/1/2012 9:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
> thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
> form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they
> *should*, along the lines Roy suggests
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 9:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
>> thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
>> form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies h
On 3/1/2012 9:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> I don't know what statement Roy is referring to, so I won't challenge
> it directly. Instead I will ask that people work together to find out
> what processes are right for the ASF at this point in time, even if
> these processes are different than the one
On Mar 1, 2012, at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 9:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> I don't know what statement Roy is referring to, so I won't challenge
>> it directly. Instead I will ask that people work together to find out
>> what processes are right for the ASF at this point
