Hi Folks, On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:14 PM, < [email protected]> wrote:
> > That what I created INFRA-9248, because we already have IP Clerance >> report draft that we can finalise now. >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/trunk/ >> content/ip-clearance/commons-rdf.xml?view=markup&pathrev=1612386 >> > > What's the next step and by whom? > The next step 'was' for us to confirm who owned the IP. That has been clarified by the fact that a number of committers have been contributing under ASLv2.0 within the public forum e.g. the existing commons-rdf repos @GH. This looks about as clean as it gets IMHO. > > Mentors : sorry to come back to this but IP ingestion is very important > and it is worth being as clean as possible so that the foundation of the > project is as sound as possible. Having you review and validate the > process as independent parties is helpful in that. > So, in all honesty I was not aware of the IP clearance issue raised, logged and being maintained at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/commons-rdf.xml?view=markup&pathrev=1612386 I am very pleased to see that this is in place. Please read on, there are a number of points from a number of people I am commenting on > > On 18/03/15 22:41, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > We, as individuals, own the rights to the code on GH. > +1 > > > > Our current iCLAs cover contributions to Apache so don't > > automatically cover the GH-commons-rdf code unless we each explicitly > > say that we are transferring the code to Apache. > Yes. But I think that this is where this thread is headed or already is! > > > > The cleanest is SG's from all contributors and the Incubator IP > > clearance process. > > > > If the mentors deem it acceptable, then I/personally am happy with > > explicit declarations from the 5 [*] contributors so far here in > > email to say that we, as Apache committers, each contribute the code > > on GH and hence our individual iCLAs can be applied. > I am +1 on this one as well and would back up this decision however please read on. > > > > I'll leave the decision to the mentors (sorry - /me trying to not to > > be on both sides of the fence at once in some quantum uncertainty > > field). > > Do you think email declaration and iCLA enough? > 50/50, I think it would be clean as possible, if 'someone' (a nominated member of the existing commons-rdf committership) would sign an SGA and send it to secretary@ CC'ing private@commonsrdf. My justification is that exiting guidance does already exist http://www.apache.org/licenses/#grants This DOES apply to us! > > I've just created our first issue COMMONSRDF-1 [1] for managing such > process, where: > > * I updated the IP Clearance status report [2] > Thanks > > * I can easily prepare a bundle with the current repository > Great > > * If the contribution by an external developer (commit > 2ff2c6be5415295943c3131625695be1f5415c5a [3]) would represent an issue, > we can easily skipped from the code donation given its minor importance. > I don't think that it does. > > * And then I could push it to our incubator-commonsrdf.git repository. > +1 to this > > But as Andy said, I'd prefer our mentors to review this process to make it > as clean as possible. > Keep reading please > > BTW, where do email notifications on Jira go..? I didn't see anything > here or on commits. > dev@commonsrdf, if you guys want to change this then by all means we can. > > Here, but the request from Lewis is still being processed bu INFRA: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9245?focusedCommentId=14381883&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14381883 > > This has all been addressed and the parent issue resolved. We are 'just' waiting on the SGA, if you guys can nominate someone, or someone just comes ahead and submits on to secretary@, CC'ing private@commonsrdf. Then Sergio can progress with importing the code once we hear back from secretary@ that the SGA has been approved. CommonsRDF has already been approved by the Incubator as we got OVERWHELMING support within the VOTE'ing process for the Incubator proposal. This means that we've essentially already negotiated with the Incubator community. We are good to lodge the SGA and move on folks. Thanks Lewis
