Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Improving license check for depen

[Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Mar 20, 2020, at 11:43, Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 9:58 AM Daniel Megert <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 1. Remove the need to get PMC approval.
> 
> As a Tools PMC representative this would be very welcome.
> 
> I agree for the Tools PMC but other PMCs know their projects in detail and are responsive, like e.g. the PMC of the Eclipse Project. It should be left to each PMC to say whether they require CQ approval or not.
> 
> But this would require extra development on the ipzilla side. If Foundation has the manpower to allow each PMC to set such setting fine. If not we can not penalize all other PMCs for the need of one. Rather we (Eclipse PMC) would have to find a way to keep track that on our side.


Hmm ... there might be a workaround. :) 

The RT PMC requires a representative from each project to join the PMC.
The RT PMC has a rule that "self" approvals is not welcomed (eg. release reviews, etc.).

However the IP team considers PMC entered CQs as pre-/auto-approved. At least, that was my observation when entering CQs as project lead for an RT project.

Having said that, it's up to the PMC to defined the rules of engagement. I know that some PMCs are interested in tight management of the dependencies. Hence the request for PMC approval. In Technology we don't. We basically just check for basic errors and approve every CQ. This becomes a bottleneck sometimes (especially around vacation times).

I believe that in theory the IP policy and EDP already allows for delegation and pre-approval as practiced by the RT PMC. It's not codified in the IP tool and requires manual recognition by the IP team, which makes it challenging at scale.

-Gunnar




-- 
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://guw.io/