Re: Bringing in new projects.
----- Original Message -----
On 10/08/2011 05:15 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
> 1. I think the opening paragraph is redundant:
> "The oVirt Board has realized that for oVirt to be truly
> successful, the quality and health of its associated projects must
> be extremely high. However, oVirt itself is just starting out and
> also realizes the need to have a low “barrier to entry” for new
> projects as well as a streamlined approach to accepting in new
> projects."
>
> 2. " The new project agrees ..
> .. to integrate with one of the oVirt published API’s
> .. to support the platforms release schedule."
>
> Agreeing should be the requirement in order to enter the
> *incubation* phase.
> Actually implementing the above should be required in order to
> graduate from the incubator (necessary but not sufficient)
correct.
> 3. More detials at
> http://www.ovirt.org/governance/adding-a-subproject/
>
> s/detials/details/
>
> 4. "All IP associated with the project codebase and support files
> (eg: website content, logos, documentation, etc) is in good
> standing, tracked and provides a clear license from copyright
> holder to oVirt."
>
> First, shouldn't we have a disclaimer about patent infringements in
> the new project?
> Also, should we require specific open source licenses? or maybe
> require that the licenses are compatible with oVirt licenses?
no, this is not required, the ASL2 covers that sufficiently. But
applying the ASL, all these items are being agreed to.
> 5. "The Incubated project can, at any time, petition for a vote of
> the Board to graduate to full status. The vote of the Board must
> be unanimous. Any NO votes must clearly indicate why the Director
> did not approve graduation and must provide clear guidance on what
> he/she is looking for to address the deficiency."
>
> How often would the board "convene"?
The board does not need to convene for this, votes can be started
24/7/365 days a year. As long as they are left open long enough for
people to comment. typically 72 hours. see the page on voting.
That doesn't sound right to me. In the least, there should be a minimal number of
board members required to vote (i.e. 3 acks with 10 people absent because they're on
national holiday is not good).
regards
Carl.