On Sep 20, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also hope that there's no much to do at this point, however, my > understanding was that clearance has to be voted: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#poding-ip-clearance I am saying we are done because of the following document (referenced by the document you mention above): http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html and specifically: "This form is not for new projects. This is for projects and PMCs that have already been created and are receiving a code donation into an existing codebase." This also adds some interesting details: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance quoting: "Existing codebases need to be imported through the standard IP clearance process. This means that a Software Grant Agreement (SGA) or Contributor License Agreement (CLA) need to be submitted for all copyright owners. This process may take a while so it is best to start as soon as the podling is accepted. The acceptance of the initial codebases is approved by the IPMC as part of the acceptance motion. So, no vote is required by the PPMC." > > BTW, at the end of September, I hope to be able to do > 2.3.24-RC1-incubating at last, and I hope there will be no > bureaucratic obstacles. Let me know if any of you know of any! I don't. A tool that is useful to prepare and audit the release is the following: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/ Regards, Jacopo > > -- > Thanks, > Daniel Dekany > > > Sunday, September 20, 2015, 5:14:17 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > >> Daniel, >> >> I think we are done with the IP clearance process at this point, >> the required CLAs and SFAs are all filed. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jacopo >> >> References: >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-clean-up >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance >> >> >> On Sep 12, 2015, at 3:31 PM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Saturday, September 12, 2015, 10:49:37 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote: >>> >>>> Daniel, sorry, I'll try to go through this on Monday. >>>> >>>> For provenance purposes what it's important is to have tagged in both repos >>>> (original and asf) the concrete version that has been donated. >>> >>> I have added "donated-to-asf" tags in both the GitHub and ASF repos. >>> More precisely, as the "freemarker" repository (as opposed to the >>> "site" and "docgen" repos) has 3 branches ("2.3-gae", "2.3" and >>> "master"), there we have "2.3-gae-donated-to-asf" and >>> "2.3-donated-to-asf" and "master-donated-to-asf", respectively. >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> Daniel Dekany >>> >>>> On Sep 12, 2015 10:02 AM, "Daniel Dekany" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just wanted to bring the below mail to your attention, as it was now 9 >>>>> days without any reaction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is a forwarded message >>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2015, 12:56:50 AM >>>>> Subject: [Mentors] Starting IP clearance process? >>>>> >>>>> ===8<==============Original message text=============== >>>>> Dear Mentors (and others who want to help), >>>>> >>>>> We have the 3 repos (freemarker, docgen, site) imported as you might >>>>> noticed from the flood of commit messages (sorry...), and I have >>>>> changed the copyright headers, ensured that the 3 standard legal files >>>>> (NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER) are there, and removed files that I >>>>> have spotted with unclear copyright. So, gloss over the 3 projects if >>>>> you want to, and then I think I should add a tag like "ip-clearance", >>>>> and the more official review could be started. Or something like >>>>> that... Please advise! >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ===8<===========End of original message text=========== >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >
