From c9ebf9a4d46874764db189ef644110335c7604ab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ayla Croft Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2026 09:14:36 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] docs(adr): ADR-0012 correction: Sandbox requires the transfer and the charter at entry The 2026-09-05 correction read the Sandbox announcement instead of the lifecycle policy that governs it. The policy's six Sandbox criteria, the twelve-month clock and the Growth bar are quoted verbatim, and the consequences for legal review and the public name are stated. Signed-off-by: Ayla Croft --- ...2-open-source-and-aaif-donation-posture.md | 37 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/adr/0012-open-source-and-aaif-donation-posture.md b/docs/adr/0012-open-source-and-aaif-donation-posture.md index 4d6646d..18ce956 100644 --- a/docs/adr/0012-open-source-and-aaif-donation-posture.md +++ b/docs/adr/0012-open-source-and-aaif-donation-posture.md @@ -32,3 +32,40 @@ projects, roadmap, OpenSSF Best Practices badge). ## Consequences - Every public-facing claim in the README follows the three-shelf rule: agent claims here, authority claims cited. - Sandbox's 12-month Growth clock means the proposal is filed only when two unaffiliated adopters are plausible. + +## Correction, appended 2026-10-08: Sandbox requires the transfer and the charter at entry + +The 2026-09-05 correction above was wrong, and the first version of the Context was right. It read the +Sandbox announcement, which summarises, instead of the policy, which governs. The governing text is +`aaif/technical-committee`, `governance/project-lifecycle-policy.md`: Sandbox was added there on +2026-07-08 (commit `d26a92cd`) and Governing Board approval on 2026-08-17 (`b021aaa8`). Its Sandbox +acceptance criteria, verbatim: + +1. "Released under an OSI-approved permissive license." +2. "Have a working implementation." +3. "Have at least one actively committing maintainer, with documented intent to grow the contributor base." +4. "Provide a short written thesis (1-2 pages) covering who would use the project, what would justify + Growth graduation, and either documented early external interest or a credible argument for why the + project matters pre-adoption." +5. "Meet the standard AAIF requirements: transfer of project trademarks and other assets to the LF, and + adoption of the LF technical charter." +6. "Receive an absolute majority vote (>50%) of the Technical Committee, subject to final approval of the + Governing Board." + +The same policy sets the clock: "Projects are expected to apply for Growth within twelve months; otherwise +the Technical Committee opens an Emeritus/archival discussion." Graduation needs "documented production use +by at least two unaffiliated organizations" and "commits from at least two organizations over the prior six +months, named committers, and a documented committer-acceptance process." The proposal form asks the +proposer to agree to donate all project trademarks and accounts, and names an organisation signatory for the +contribution agreement. The copy of the process under `aaif/project-proposals` predates Sandbox and is stale. + +What this changes: + +- Point 5 of the Decision stands, and is now concrete: the contribution agreement assigns trademarks, + domains and accounts (not copyright; Apache-2.0 and the DCO remain the inbound terms), so legal review + must cover the signatory, the list of what transfers, and the name. +- **The name.** "Trinity" is a crowded mark, with registrations and pending applications in Class 42 + software and AI services. It stays the code name and the package prefix; a public mark is chosen and + cleared by counsel before any proposal or public launch. +- **The binding constraint is the twelve-month clock, not the paperwork.** The Consequence above already + said the proposal waits until two unaffiliated adopters are plausible; that is now the policy's own bar.