Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Improving license check for dependencies

> On Mar 20, 2020, at 15:24, Jonah Graham <jonah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Therefore, for example, the Eclipse PMC, can no longer rely on CQs to track new dependencies in their collective projects.

They cannot rely on CQs. However, they can still implement a rule that requires their projects to seek PMC approval for *any* dependency they want. A PMC really has super powers to some extend. :) 

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

The questions is: do we really need to turn off anything? 

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

Sort of. If you become part of the PMC you will share the responsibility. Thus, you can self-approve your own CQs *if* the PMC is fine with that. The EDP and the IP policy do not forbid that. 

> On Mar 20, 2020, at 16:12, Daniel Megert <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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?
> This is already required today for all IP Log reviews..

🤔 I think this is something the Eclipse PMC implemented. At Technology PMC we do not review the IP Logs. This is done by EMO/IP team.


Back to the top