Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote: >> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your >> answer. If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue >>working >> with it as 3rd

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

I guess, that is the difference between 'The Apache Way' and anyother way Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote: > > >There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor > >license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the >

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

I think the chances of anyone making so much as a squeak in those projects is close to zero. Being that’s the case, my takeaway is that it’s ok to take them. Harbs On Nov 27, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

Hi, > 1) Swiz Framework. There have been 6 contributors (not looking at pull requests), 5 of which have ben active in github this year. Would it be so hard to ask them? > 2) AS3Commons Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the contributors has already been asked,

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

Alex wrote: >sounds like PMCs are not empowrd to make a judgement call gere. >Here are two cases: Can anybody do the grunt work/due diligence in obtaining permission/authorization/whatever for ASF clearence, or is that function limted to current/former members of the community the cde

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

On 11/27/15, 3:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> 1) Swiz Framework. > >There have been 6 contributors (not looking at pull requests), 5 of which >have ben active in github this year. Would it be so hard to ask them? Strange, my GH view showed 12. And what do

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

Pierre, I don't understand your comment. Could you help clarify it? A) was this sarcasm? If so, please indicate what you are being sarcastic about and I will respond however you like. If this was just intended as snarky, no need to clarify B) do you think that there is a real issue here? C)

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

Explain that you represent an apache project which would like to incorporate the project in question. Ask if they are cool with their contribution being licensed as ASL. A simple email confirmation should be fine. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 28, 2015, at 12:40, Alex Harui

[RESULT] [VOTE] Accept S2Graph into Apache Incubation

The vote has been passed with 10 binding +1s: * Seetharam Venkatesh * Hyunsik Choi * Rob Vesse * Sergio Fernández * Henry Saputra * Andrew Purtell * Stack * Julien Le Dem * Jakob Homan * Edward J. Yoon There were 5 non-binding +1: * Luke Han * Hongbin Ma * Moon Soo Lee * Byoung-Gon Chun *

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

Hi, > Strange, my GH view showed 12. That includes pull requests. > And what do we ask? To sign an SGA or something else? a) If they are OK to have the code donated to Apache b) have they signed an ICLA for the project and if not would they be willing to sign an Apache one. > And how many

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

The key question is whether the code winds up in an apache repo. If it is downloaded during build, no problem. If you download it and check it in as source then we need to cross t's and dot i's a bit. The term bundling is not terribly precise. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 28, 2015, at

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

On 11/27/15, 10:50 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote: > >Explain that you represent an apache project which would like to >incorporate the project in question. Ask if they are cool with their >contribution being licensed as ASL. The code is already under AL. I think we want them

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

As with many other things, there is a difference between what we CAN do and what we SHOULD do. We CAN take whatever permissively licensed codebase we want, basically, and create an Apache PMC around it. All we would be doing is what we allow others to do w/ our projects. As long as we abide by

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

+1 binding On Thursday, November 26, 2015, Ted Dunning wrote: > +1 (binding) > > I think that forcing experienced community developers into one model or the > other is unnecessary. Let them in as they would like. > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stein

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

+1 binding On Thursday, November 26, 2015, Ted Dunning wrote: > +1 binding > > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Konstantin Boudnik > wrote: > > > Come to think of it a bit more, yes I am not satisfied with the outcome > of > > the

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

Hi Jim, In these cases, we are not creating a new PMC around these code bases, we are placing it under control of an existing PMC. Plus, there is effectively no community left. Nobody has made a change to these projects in 4 years. A major contributor from each project has indicated their

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your > answer. If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working > with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the risks" > as Ted said, then