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

[Jonah Graham <jonah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My understanding with the new IP policies is that the effect of PMC involvement in CQ process was going to disappear naturally anyway. As CQs only need to be created for the first project that wants a new dependency*, all other projects can just use the dependency so there is no CQ and no PMC involved. Therefore, for example, the Eclipse PMC, can no longer rely on CQs to track new dependencies in their collective projects.

Therefore it seems to me if we have this new IP policy in place, turning off the PMC involvement now makes sense.

To address Dani's issues of Eclipse PMC case it seems the Eclipse PMC may add a requirement of a +1 of the IP Log Review instead?

* And in the case it is Clearly Defined already, then a CQ isn't needed even in this case.

Jonah

~~~
Jonah Graham
Kichwa Coders
www.kichwacoders.com

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 08:35, Jim Hughes <jnh5y@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi all,

On the PMC approval front, I think I'm hearing that I could work with
the LocationTech PMC to change our ROE to allow for self-approvals of
CQs?

That'd mean that as I enter a CQ, I'd just check the box myself, and
then it'd be off to the races?

Seems like a nice, neat, local solution to that issue.  Shouldn't
require anybody else's work, etc.

Thoughts?

Jim

On 2020-03-20 08:05, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
>> 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
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council