[technology-pmc] Do we need to file a CQ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

[technology-pmc] Do we need to file a CQ?

From: Fred Bricon <fbricon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 10:22:12 -0400
Delivered-to: technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/technology-pmc>
List-help: <mailto:technology-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc>, <mailto:technology-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/options/technology-pmc>, <mailto:technology-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Greetings esteemed members of the EMO and the Technology PMC,

we have a pending pull-request for jdt.ls [1], contributed by Valerii Svydenko, a Red Hat employee (so same employer as the Submitting Committer where the employer has signed a Member Committer Agreement). The contribution is ~18.5kLOC but mostly consists in copied jdt.ui bits.

It's unclear to us whether we should engage in the CQ process or not, this case doesn't seem covered in the legal poster[2] (or maybe I'm dumb).

Fred

[1] https://github.com/eclipse/eclipse.jdt.ls/pull/614/files

[2] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf

"Have you tried turning it off and on again" - The IT Crowd

And if that fails, then http://goo.gl/tnBgH5

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [technology-pmc] Do we need to file a CQ?
  - From: Mickael Istria
- Re: [technology-pmc] Do we need to file a CQ?
  - From: Werner Keil

Prev by Date: [technology-pmc] [CQ 16428] jQuery 3.3.1
Next by Date: Re: [technology-pmc] Do we need to file a CQ?
Previous by thread: [technology-pmc] [CQ 16428] jQuery 3.3.1
Next by thread: Re: [technology-pmc] Do we need to file a CQ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Breadcrumbs