On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > > > > I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template > > > that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about > > > decisions that the Incubator is not responsible for making. > > > The required IP clearance questions should be: > > > > > > Date: > > > Identify the Contribution: > > > Identify the Contributor(s): > > > What are the filenames for the applicable > > > software grant(s): > > > Corporate CLA(s): > > > Individual CLA(s): > > > Location of initial import: > > > Destination PMC: > > > > > > That's it. > > > > > > > One more; > > > > Determine www.a.o/licenses/exports implications > > for notifications. > > > > That's my last crypto audit step, putting that request to all incubator > > podlings and ensuring this mess is under control moving forwards. Without > > adding this as an IP import step, it won't happen. > > i've committed a stripped down template and moved the prose into a > guide. this guide is just copy ATM but i'll try to find some time to > tidy it up sometime tomorrow. > > feedback on the template appreciated or just jump in with a patch ;-)
after process objections, i've reverted the source and withdraw this patch. if anyone wants to pick it up, i've opened a JIRA. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
