Greetings Technology PMC!
I've spent some time this morning reviewing the "contribution" CQs
in IPZilla. There were a couple of CQs that didn't need to be there.
I have communicated with the projects and these CQs have been
withdrawn.
This is mostly just FYI.
Figure #2 of the Eclipse Legal Process poster [1] identifies a very
specific set of conditions:
--
Written 100% by employees
of the same employer as the
Submitting
Committer: (a)
under the supervision of the
PMC; and (b) where the
employer has
signed a
Member Committer
Agreement.
--
If you follow the flow from this figure to the bottom (assuming that
you make it past the "cryptography" part), then a CQ is not required
and the code can be simply committed into a project source code
repository.
I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Except for the "under the
supervision of the PMC" part.
I regard a contribution to have been developed "under the
supervision of the PMC" if the code was written in response to a
pre-existing bug (i.e. the code was written after the bug was
created), or if the code was written to address a specific plan item
(i.e. the plan item being documented before the code was written),
or if the code represents the natural evolution of some existing
functionality.
Is everybody cool with this definition?
Can we just make this as simple as a bug has to be open as that provides some level of supervision and transparency. What cases are we trying to eliminate here or are we worried about?
