Hi, Add vincentWangKB to the recipient list.
vincentWangKB announced the contribution of the rocketmq-cpp project in our community lately[1], It's undoubtedly true that this project should pass through the IP clearance. Consider that our PMC has no experience to help outside project through the IP clearance, I suggest let's start the process with this case, clear the IP issues on the rocketmq-cpp project ASAP. Hope we could resolve this issue before submitting next board report :) [1]. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7de2547f2eb29aede24d220628aad2ce8d1aaf8b21d118ec9b72bacd@%3Cdev.rocketmq.apache.org%3E [2]. http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ Regards, yukon On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:23 PM, vongosling <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry to miss the context. Repost again :-) > > Hi, > > As the topic said, I would like to put forward this issue despite we are > apache tlp project. Firstly. we must arrange the total projects outside of > Apache Repository[3]. According to my work on Apache RocketMQ Externals, > CPP client[1] is a contribution from Alibaba, which is outside of Apache > Repository. Could anyone add else? If no, I suggest we re-check what we > have done about all external projects [2]. > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-externals/tree/master/rocketmq-cpp > [2] https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-externals > [3] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ > > > Best Regards, > Von Gosling > > > 2017-03-20 17:04 GMT+08:00 Von Gosling <[email protected]>: > > > Hi, > > > > > Perhaps like Justin > > > said above, getting ICLAs from the contributors and having the > potential > > > committer discussion about each of them right away. > > > > > > > > Actually, i was also puzzled about this contribution behavior coming from > > some Apache Project Community. I have been investing other Apache TLP > works > > about here. They get them involved in through the same git repository, or > > leave them alone, just through one formal link to touch these community > > projects. But as for us, we hope to merge the mature project to our > > repository, let it under Apache RocketMQ’s umbrella. So, that’s why we > > provided the Github group RocketMQ firstly, hoping to gathering them > > together. We define the mature project as those were used in product > > environment massively, like the RocketMQ-JMS and RocketMQ-Console > projects > > from the RocketMQ’s first marathon campaign :-) > > > > > > > 在 2017年3月19日，01:26，Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> 写道： > > > > > > Thanks for raising this question, Justin, as there is an important > > > distinction here. > > > > > > Since the code that was not part of the core RocketMQ and was recently > > > moved to the externals project was not migrated as part of the original > > > move from Github to the ASF, it must be treated a bit differently. This > > is > > > especially true if folks who are not currently committers to the ASF > > > RocketMQ project contributed to that code. We should have taken a more > > > formal approach to moving over this code (my mistake for not > recognizing > > > this sooner). In terms of voting in the folks who contributed to this > > code > > > when it resided at Github vs. now that it resides at the ASF, there > must > > be > > > a formal discussion of this amongst the PPMC about these potential > > > committers in order to make this decision just like any other potential > > > committers. > > > > > > It's also important to recognize that the ASF cannot provide the same > > legal > > > guarantees for code that was not officially contributed to the ASF vs. > > code > > > that goes through the proper legal process that has been established > over > > > the years at the ASF (like the original core RocketMQ code went > through). > > > This what code grants are all about and an important tenant of why the > > ASF > > > exists. I'm honestly not quite sure what to do here. Perhaps like > Justin > > > said above, getting ICLAs from the contributors and having the > potential > > > committer discussion about each of them right away. > > > > > > Justin, what are your further thoughts on this second topic? > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Justin Mclean < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >>> And we want to adopt the same way in the second code marathon: > > >>> 1. Launch and develop the sub project in [1] at the initial stage. > > >>> 2. Migrate the stable and fully functional sub projects to > > >>> rocketmq-externals, meanwhile vote the top contributors as a > committer. > > >>> > > >>> Does it ok ? > > >> > > >> I think I have a couple of issues with this: > > >> 1. Code that hasn’t been reviewed for possible IP or legal issues is > > >> copied into the Apache repo. > > >> 2. We may not have ICLAs for the contributors. > > >> 3. You are voting on committer based on their contribution to an > > external > > >> project not this Apache project. > > >> > > >> What do the other mentors think? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Justin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > perl -e 'print > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" > );' > > > > > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > > > > > > > -- > Nothing is impossible >
