[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification on PMC CQ voting process (Was: PleaseVote on CQ 2761, CQ 2762 AND CQ 2769)
|
I dislike having to wait 1 week for potential -1 votes.
Since I like my own requests processed quickly, this would
essentially put me in the same position as we have now --
trying to get all members to vote quickly so I don't have
to wait the whole week.
We're talking about CQ's here, but what about approvals for
new committers for instance? - Just having been voted in
as a committer on the Eclipse Platform Core component, I
can say that McQ's +1 for the Eclipse PMC was there within
a day. Also, when I asked Bjorn a long time ago about this,
his answer was clearly that "a single PMC member in good
standing with the PMC can make approvals in the spirit
of the PMC". But I can certainly ask other PMC's how they
are handling this.
I'd like to pose again the question in what respect we're
afraid of somebody not being able to make a vote for a
different project. I'm in favor of a kind of "parallel
approval process". I think that we can be optimistic and
allow things like committer provisioning or CQ processing
proceed quickly, but leave a back-door for the unexpected
case: allow PMC members to veto a CQ after the fact.
Since a veto after the fact would have impact on those
processing the CQ or new committer request, we'd have to
ask them whether they are OK with potentially revoking
approval and thus potentially making some of their work
invalid.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:19 PM
> To: DSDP PMC list
> Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification on PMC CQ voting
> process (Was: PleaseVote on CQ 2761, CQ 2762 AND CQ 2769)
>
> Maybe 2 non-project PMC members is enough. That will put some
> additional
> eyes on the submission. I also thinking a voting window would be good,
> since not everyone can respond right away. How's this:
>
> "CQ PMC Votes: The PMC member for the project containing the CQ will
> request a vote on the PMC. The vote is held open for 7 business days.
> Two additional PMC members must vote +1, and there can be no -1 votes.
> After the vote is approved, the project's PMC member will
> approve the CQ
> in ipzilla."
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Kurzke
> > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 2:00 PM
> > To: DSDP PMC list
> > Subject: [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
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dsdp-pmc mailing list
> > 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
>
