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

[Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe that you are confusing the use of third party content with a contribution of project code.

All third party content needs to be vetted by the IP Team.

According to the IP Due Diligence process, some contributions of project code content needs to be reviewed. The short version is that any contribution of more than 1KLOC needs to be reviewed by the IP Team (Figure #2 notwithstanding).

Your use of Orbit here is a bit of a red herring. The purpose of Orbit is to provide a place for "OSGi-ified" third party content. Some third party content that is approved (but not all) ends up in Orbit. Whether or not content is in Orbit is irrelevant. Any third party content that has not yet been reviewed by the IP Team needs to be reviewed. The only exception is "bug-fix only" service releases of approved third party content.

Wayne

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I am also just a Project lead who had to use CQs quite a lot (e.g. resolve License issues with JCP licenses, etc.) but I don’t think a CQ would be necessary for some commits. If his contribution introduced a new external dependency that is not yet under Eclipse Orbit (aka has a CQ) then it might be necessary, just to have him commit, I don’t recall adding a new committer or contributor after they signed their Agreement also  requires a CQ.

 

Werner

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Fred Bricon
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 16:22
To: EMO EMO; technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Valerii Svydenko; Gorkem Ercan; Thomas Maeder
Subject: [technology-pmc] Do we need to file a CQ?

 

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

 

_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects

The Eclipse Foundation