Hi, John Thanks for the input. So, I would hazard a guess that Twitter folks would like to help with this. I'm not sure who would want to hunt through the management chain to find someone to reverse-own a decision made 3 years ago, though! Regardless, on my part, I'll see if I can find a champion inside Twitter to resurrect and SGA.
Best, -A On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks Adrian. Some comments/banter below. > > Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an SGA. If > it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had > headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or Apache > License w/ different copyright statements). The SGA is used to replace the > headers with the standard ASF headers. We should not block migrating the > repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out. > > Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should ensure > that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation process. > This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling is > ready to graduate. > > With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to > receive a SGA from Twitter. Even if the current code doesn't match the > code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP history > for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential problems > that may come up along the way. However, to be realistic I believe if we > receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that should > satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the contribution > process that Adrian has pointed out below. > > Thoughts? > > John > > [1]: https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:25 PM Adrian Cole <adrian.f.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > There was a process involved at Twitter when we first moved it to the > > openzipkin organization. It was 100% clear that this was an act for > > the community to control the code. Senior management were involved > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/zipkin-user/fbOgEZpuQx4/bWH1-__EmCoJ > > > > After that, all the repositories had contributing files like the below > > indicating that all changes we to be redistributable under ASL > > > > https://github.com/openzipkine/zipkin/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#license > > <https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#license> > > > > There was no collection of contributor agreements beyond this. Most of > > the code except save some UI assets have been completely rewritten > > since the migration to OpenZipkin a few years back. > > > > Hope these details help, > > -A > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mick, > > > > > > tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to > > establish that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant or > > an ICLA. > > > > > > In order to establish that Apache has the rights to the code base, every > > line of code needs to have its provenance researched. > > > > > > Looking at the proposal https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZipkinProposal > > it seems like most of the code is in the github repository > > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin . Is there any code coming from > > another source? Was the original code from Twitter granted to OpenZipkin? > > Is there any documentation of that copyright transfer? Does Twitter retain > > any rights? > > > > > > The capitalization of the "Initial Source" section is a bit strange. But > > can we assume that the only committers to the project are listed at > > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors ? > > > > > > The proposal also says that "All source code is copyrighted to 'The > > OpenZipkin Authors', to which the existing core community(members list in > > Initial Committers) has the rights to re-assign to the ASF. " > > > > > > It looks like there were many people who contributed a few lines of > > code. Did they sign anything like a Contributor Agreement that grants their > > copyright to The OpenZipkin Authors? > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It's come up that the migration of the github Zipkin repositories to > > ASF requires either a signed SGA or a sign-off from the Secretary. Chris > > raised this on `INFRA-16989 – Zipkin incubator project request for the > > GitHub repositories moving service`. > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that if the Copyright was already held by > > the community, it is held by 'The OpenZipkin Authors', that the ICLA from > > all those authors would suffice and a SGA not be required. And it's news to > > me that this would also require a sign-off from the ASF Secretary. > > > > > > > > What's the correct process here? who can help? should I forward the > > question to the Secretary? > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > Mick > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > Craig L Russell > > > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > > > c...@apache.org <mailto:c...@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo < > > http://db.apache.org/jdo> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
