Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
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.
Thanks Robert, I actually think it was a mistake not to just leave things
be. But given that Sam's volunteered his committee to take this on and
asked that you back it out, I'm sure he'll find the volunteer to see it
through. Be sure to nag [if|when] that doesn't happen.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
