From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:20 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification: Please Vote on CQ 2761,CQ 2762
AND CQ 2769
Hi all,
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
elsewhere.
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.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of
Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Kurzke
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:59 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: Paula Gustavo-WGP010; Eric Hildum-XFQ473
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification: Please Vote on CQ 2761,CQ 2762 AND CQ
2769
There is some confusion around those CQ's, the initial CQ 2761 was
covering TWO Jar files, and the Legal team advised to create separate CQ's for
each Jar file.
The new CQ 2769 is for the second library.
Please vote for the missing CQ's.
Here is a link to the IP-Zilla entries:
The code for the plugin itself is covered by CQ 2762
: https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2762
The supporting Library for CLDC 1.0 is covered by CQ 2761 : https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2761
The supporting Library for CLDC 1.1 is covered by CQ 2769 : https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2769
Overview of current votes:
|
PMC Member
|
CQ 2761 :
JM Unit CLDC 1.0 Library
|
CQ 2769 :
JM Unit CLDC 1.1 Library
|
CQ 2762 :
JmeUnit Plugin
|
Doug Gaff |
+1
|
|
+1
|
Pawel Piech |
|
|
+1
|
Shigeki Moride |
|
|
+1
|
Christian Kurzke |
+1
|
|
+1
|
Mark Rogalski |
|
|
|
Martin Oberhuber |
+1
|
|
+1
|
Eric Cloninger |
|
|
+1
|
Dave Russo |
|
|
|
Christian Kurzke wrote:
More Info:
We received a contribution to MTJ from Nokia via Bugzilla.
The contribution was created by Nokia, is submitted under the terms of the EPL.
This contribution provides a "JUnit" like feature for JavaME
developers, using a Apache 2 licensed open source library.
The code for the plugin itself is covered by CQ 2762 : https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2762
The supporting Library is
covered by CQ 2769 : https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2769
_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
