[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[eclipse.org-architecture-council] [URGENT] Channel for IP Discussions (was: Update - Backlog - Email Avoidance Week)
|
Hi Janet,
I
appreciate especially option (2) - asking PMCs and Mentors to
provide
guidance on IP questions - and I believe that this is a good route
towards
getting more scalability in the future: offloading simpler IP related
tasks
to educated people like PMCs and Mentors.
I
understand that a critical resource to making this happen
successfully
is very good documentation of IP related things on the
Web (Like the
EPL FAQ, we might need more such kinds of
FAQ). If such an authoritative
FAQ exists, then the PMC and the
Mentors can answer questions by
pointing to the FAQ, saying like "In my
understanding, the Foundation's
stance on your issue is clearly stated in
that FAQ entry".
Talking as the Architecture Council, however, one thing seems to
be
missing here: an official channel for us (mentors in this case)
to
escalate or discuss IP related
questions.
As it stands, it seems that people are very reluctant answering IP
related questions in public channels such as bugzilla. I'm thus
wondering whether we could install some kind of channel on
which
for this channel, from my point of view:
-
Visible
to Mentors / IP staff only in order to ensure open
discussions
-
Archived in some way to allow new Mentors look at previous
discussions -- ideally, resolved discussions would go into the
IP/Legal
FAQ mentioned before, then the discussion medium
doesn't necessarily nead
archival
-
Be a
kind of communication medium between the board (IP
Advisory Council) and
the AC, that is: allow the AC to ask for
topic things to be discussed at
the Board, and Board answers
to be routed back to the
AC
-
Timely discussion on both
sides
What are your thoughts about such a channel? Would it make sense
to
reinstate "IPBugs" for discussion on IPZilla? These would be
visible
to all committers, but it seems better than Bugzilla which is open
to the public. Another option would be a bugzilla flag like the
one
To be more concrete, two IP related questions currently under the
AC's
custody are kind of awaiting your comments: Bug 246945 [3]
-
Best practices for interfacing with libs that are not EPL
compatible,
and bug
249959 [4] - Copyright headers for checked-in generated
sources.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project
Lead, DSDP PMC Member
When I last wrote to you all it was to let you know
that we had a particularly large package that was creating delays in reviewing
the IP you have submitted for our review. The good news is that we are
3/4 way there. The bad news is that there's still 1/4 to go.
Replying to your questions and concerns is an important part of our jobs and
we make every effort to respond as quickly as well can, increasingly at the expense of code
review. The cumulative
effect is an increasing backlog. There are two things we are going
to do to help address this issue:
(1) The entire IP Team is going to avoid all
email/IPZilla discussion this week. We will use the added time to
finish the large package under review and clear some of the backlog. If
you have something truly urgent, send an email to me with "URGENT" in the
subject line or feel free to give me a call.
(2) We are going to ask the PMCs and Mentors to
the Projects to more actively provide guidance on the IP process, and
encourage the Projects to seek out their support. While we
recognize that the PMCs and Mentors may not know all the answers, rest assured
that we will be there to help. Our hope is that in supporting
the PMCs and Mentors in providing this guidance we will be better able to
scale.
We appreciate your patience as we work to serve you
better.
Regards,
Janet
Janet Campbell
Legal Counsel & Manager,
Intellectual Property
Phone: +1.613.224.9461, x.229
(GMT -5)
Fax:
+1.613.224.5172
janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx
