[dsdp-pmc] RE: Process for Code Contributions / Feature Additions

["Gaff, Doug" <doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm also ok with that interpretation in the cases below.

My request is that anything a single PMC member approves MUST be copied
to dsdp-pmc so the rest of the group is aware.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Freeman-Benson [mailto:bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1:58 PM
> To: Oberhuber, Martin; Gaff, Doug
> Subject: Re: Process for Code Contributions / Feature Additions
> 
> Martin, Doug,
> My view is that each PMC member represents the consensus of the entire
> PMC and thus a single PMC member's approval is sufficient. Of course,
it
> does mean that you need to be careful who you put on the PMC :-)
> 
> Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
> > Dear PMC & EMO,
> >
> > After we had some confusion over what was needed in order to accept
> > a new code contribution into our project repositories (single PMC
> > member approval, or vote among the PMC), Doug Gaff asked me to
> > check and inform you. So here's what I found.
> >
> > * The standard toplevel project charter (which also applies for
dsdp)
> > says:
> >
> >
http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/Eclipse_Standard_TopLevel_Ch
> > arter_v1.0.php
> >   "The Development Projecess"
> >   "[...] The Committers of a Project or component decide which
changes
> > may
> >    be committed to the master code base of a Project or component
> > respectively.
> >    The PMC defines the decision process, but that process must
include
> > the
> >    ability for Committers to veto the change. [...] Common decision
> > processes
> >    include:
> >    * Retroactive - changes are proactively made by Committers but
can be
> >
> >    vetoed by a single Committer.
> >    * Proactive [...]
> >    * Thre Positive [...]"
> >
> > It looks like this mostly applies to code changes done by
committers,
> > and it looks like most of us are using this first (retroactive)
option,
> > i.e. let committers just do their work and veto it later if they
should
> > not like it. Would you agree that this should be our process?
> >
> > * The Contribution Questionnaire says:
> >
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/ContributionQuestionnairePart1-v1.0.php
> >   "[...] for any significant contribution of content to be committed
to
> >   an Eclipse project. Prior to completing this Questionnaire, the
> > Committer
> >   should have technical agreement from the PMC that the new code is
> > required.
> >   [...] please provide the contact info of the PMC member who has
given
> >   approval for this contribution"
> >
> > So the question is what "The PMC" means in this context. The form
seems
> > to imply that a single member's approval is sufficient. For TM,
we've
> > had to go through this process for 3 contributions now, with more to
> > follow since IBM has more code to contribute that was written before
> > joining the TM project and has not been put into the initial
> > contribution.
> > Would you agree that a single PMC member's approval is sufficient?
> >
> > * The Committer Guidelines also say:
> >   http://www.eclipse.org/legal/committerguidelines.php
> >   "All content submitted through any channel other than the Eclipse
> >   Foundation website must be approved by the PMC, and submitted to
> >   the EMO, via the Contribution Questionnaire, for due diligence
> > approval,
> >   prior to being committed to the CVS repository. [...] The analysis
> >   performed by the PMC is usually one of a purely technical nature."
> >
> > Again, it is not clear whether "the PMC" is a single PMC member or
> > a vote among all PMC members.
> >
> > My personal feeling is, that a single PMC member's approval should
> > be sufficient in order to keep the process smooth -- in most cases,
> > it's only one of the PMC members who has sufficient technical
insight
> > into the particular area of contribution anyways.
> >
> > Comments?
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Martin
> >
> > --
> >
---------------------------------/()\-----------------------------------
> > Dipl.-Ing. Martin Oberhuber
mailto:martin.oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Member of Technical Staff          Phone  (UTC +1h): +43 (662)
457915-85
> > Wind River Systems (Salzburg) GmbH              Fax: +43 (662)
457915-6
> > Jakob-Haringer-Str.8, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
http://www.windriver.com
> > ----------------------- How Smart Things Think
-------------------------
> >
> >