This is something that probably be brought up with the Architecture Council. I’m assuming this is the first attempt at pushing an npm module through the IP review process. If it is this burdensome, then, yes, it doesn’t make sense to host
at Eclipse. It would be great if we want to do more of these to make it less of a hurdle.
From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Mickael Istria
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 6:16 AM
To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [tools-pmc] CQ process for Wild Web Developer
As you've noticed, Gautier and I have opened and managed many CQs for Wild Web Developer. We've put dummy descriptions in the fields because we actually don't know nor care about the transitive dependencies of the Language Servers we're
using. We're fine listing them for IP principles, but don't get how the decription matters here, nor why we, as committers who don't care about those libs, have to do the extra work for researching what each lib is about because PMC needs it.
To me, those are not IP data but just metadata, decoration, non-payload. We shouldn't be forced to put those desciption. And if PMC needs them, it should be up to them to do the extra research effort they need.
This IP part is already quite annoying, and in all honesty, if I were not committed to the ecosystem in other means, this kind of requested effort and the answers to do extra-work would have led me to give up the contribution process and
remain a plain GitHub project.
Ideally, I would like to have been given the opportunity to just list dependencies as npm modules. And as the npmjs site lists everything, to get this list used magically to create CQs with every interesting data.