A few observations from following the process as currently documented and proposals for improvements:
1 this process can only be executed by a ASF member or officer with incubator karma. this needs to be documented on the clearance form. PROPOSAL: document this and add section on form so that it's clear who executed do we need a name for this role? 2 there is no tie between grant.txt and the incubator IP clearance. this makes oversight difficult. PROPOSAL: the clearance form should include the official name for the grant as recorded in grants.txt. 3 there is no indication the form which CLA's and CCLA's are relevant. this makes oversight difficult. PROPOSAL: the form should include official names (as listed in the foundation documents) for those donating the code. 4 there is no tie to the actual donated software. this makes oversight difficult. PROPOSAL: the md5 for the donation should be listed on the form. the repository URL where the actual donated is/will be checked in should be listed. should this be in the incubator repository or in the project? 5 the VOTE from the project receiving the code is unnecessary and confusing. it serves no useful legal purpose and normal apache process can handle objections when the code is committed. PROPOSAL: scrap this requirement i think that these proposals are uncontroversial (representing how the process is expected to work) and so can be dealt with by lazy consensus. so unless i hear any objections, i'll update the documents in a day or two... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
