Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: JSR348-119
Type: Bug Bug
Status: Closed Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: Minor Minor
Assignee: pcurran
Reporter: pcurran
Votes: 0
Watchers: 1
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
jsr348

Should a transfer ballot include the terms on which the new owner of the JSR intends to license it?

Created: 20/Sep/11 08:19 AM   Updated: 29/Sep/11 09:33 PM   Resolved: 22/Sep/11 12:47 PM
Component/s: Process Doc
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Time Tracking:
Not Specified

Tags:
Participants: Bill Shannon and pcurran


 Description  « Hide

From Bill Shannon:

Since we require license disclosure up-front and whenever there's a state change, shouldn't we require that the proposed new owner of a JSR disclose the licensing terms before we vote in a Transfer Ballot?



Bill Shannon added a comment - 20/Sep/11 08:12 PM

And in that case there's no need to include any license requirements in the process
document; the EC will evaluate the proposed license terms in the usual way, rejecting
any transfer that doesn't propose acceptable license terms.


pcurran added a comment - 22/Sep/11 12:47 PM

The Process Doc has been modified to include this requirement.

Re Bill's comment - perhaps, but it's too late now to change all of this. Besides, we really do want to draw attention to, and to encourage, the review of license terms.


pcurran made changes - 22/Sep/11 12:47 PM
Field Original Value New Value
Status Open [ 1 ] Resolved [ 5 ]
Assignee pcurran [ pcurran ]
Resolution Fixed [ 1 ]
Bill Shannon added a comment - 22/Sep/11 05:17 PM

I wasn't clear on what you did and didn't change based on my comments.
Looking at the latest document available I didn't see any mention of
license requirements related to a Transfer Ballot.

Also, section 1.2.4 references section 5.1.2, which doesn't exist.


pcurran added a comment - 22/Sep/11 07:31 PM

Hmmm... you're right. I thought I'd taken care of this but I hadn't.

I've now modified section 5.1.1 (not 5.1.2 - I corrected the reference) to read:

"If the ML decides to discontinue his or her work at any time (including discontinuing maintenance activities or declining to take on the role of Spec Lead during a significant revision initiated by a JSR) the ML, with the assistance of the PMO, should make a reasonable effort to locate another Member who is willing to take on the task. If a replacement is identified, the PMO must initiate a Transfer Ballot within 30 days to enable EC members to approve the transfer of responsibilities. The license terms that the prospective new Maintenance Lead plans to use must be disclosed prior to the ballot. If the ballot succeeds, the new ML must assume his or her responsibilities within 30 days. If no replacement can be found, or if the Transfer Ballot fails, then the PMO shall declare the Specification to be Dormant and no further maintenance can be carried out. No further Transfer Ballots will be initiated by the PMO unless a Member volunteers as ML, in which case the PMO will again have 30 days to initiate a Transfer Ballot."

I also added a footnote to clarify that this process can also be used to seek a new Spec Lead (as opposed to Maintenance Lead.)


pcurran added a comment - 29/Sep/11 09:33 PM

Fixed


pcurran made changes - 29/Sep/11 09:33 PM
Status Resolved [ 5 ] Closed [ 6 ]