|RE: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification: Please Vote on CQ 2761, CQ 2762 AND CQ 2769|
I find it tiresome trying to get unanimous PMC approval on the per-CQ level.
If I'm not mistaken, the "PMC Approved" on CQs is not in order to assess
possibility of any IP problems -- it is merely to assess whether we actually
want some functionality on the project, or not. Primary reason for "not
wanting" some functionality is if we know of duplicate similar functionality
That being said, my understanding is that the "PMC Approved" is on a
per-functionality granularity, and who approved the "JM Unit Library"
would implicitly also approve the "1.0 and 1.1" versions. Also note that
in case somebody finds an issue after the fact, it is still possible to
revoke things (it's long enough until something gets actually shipped,
and the IP Team does a good job too).
Other PMC's allow a single PMC member to approve CQ's on behalf of
the entire PMC. Trying to get unanimous consent slows things down
and is work for each of us. Do we all really want this?
+1 on CQ 2769 under the old policy,
and I request a change of policy to allow single PMC members approve
on behalf of the entire PMC, provided that they (a) seek assistance of
other PMC members if they are not technological lead in some area,
and (b) inform the PMC by E-Mail about their rationale of approving.
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
Back to the top