Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[dsdp-pmc] Clarification on PMC CQ voting process (Was: Please Vote on CQ 2761, CQ 2762 AND CQ 2769) 

I also dislike the overhead and "noise" of the votes we had in the past.
In many ways i dont feel qualified to "object" to the technical needs of another project. (As Marting points out correctly, the PMC vote is not an IP check). On the other hand, in the past - this process has led to a valuable input for my Project, Martin pointed out a good alternative for a compression library which he already uses. This reduced duplication in code and legal processing.
I also agree with Doug that the concern is that the policy of "*Any one* member of the PMC can approve the request", and the fact that each project lead is also a PMC member will result in the de-facto that every *Project Lead* will approve their own CQ. 
This effectively takes the PMC out of the loop.


How is this problem solved in other projects?
Could we do an "Any member of the PMC who is not on this project" rule? Or a "at least 2 members of PMC" need to vote? 
Or will this lead to an "I approve yours if you approve mine" buddy system?


What do others think?

-Christian



Gaff, Doug wrote:
Maybe unanimous is too much to expect, but I don’t like the idea of Project Leads approving their own CQ’s without discussion by the PMC. There needs to be a reasonable amount of cross-checking for CQ’s. 

What do others think?
*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
    <https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2769>
    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 <mailto:dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc


------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc

Back to the top