Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-pmc] Need PMC opinions on changing type of review for CQ #11306 (Node.js v.4.4.3)

Folks:  It seems I wasn’t subscribed to the PMC List when I replied to this email. Please see below.


I also extend an invitation to have a call with Wayne and I should there be any outstanding issues related to this matter.


Kind Regards,


From: Sharon Corbett [mailto:sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: December-05-16 1:09 PM
To: 'vrubezhn@xxxxxxxxxx' <vrubezhn@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'manderse@xxxxxxxxxx' <manderse@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx' <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Wayne Beaton' <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [wtp-pmc] Need PMC opinions on changing type of review for CQ #11306 (Node.js v.4.4.3)


Hi Everyone:


Apologies in advance if there has been any miscommunication.  That certainly was not the intent. 


Upon full implementation of the IP Policy changes;


- Any project will be able to choose Type A IP Review(s)


- Project IP Logs will reflect which Pre-Req dependencies are Type A or Type B


- Project IP Logs will identify consuming Eclipse project(s) information

- No restrictions regarding Type B projects consuming Type A Projects.  This decision will be project based.


Should this information change PMC decision with respect to NodeJS, please do let us know.  Wayne and I would  be happy to have with you this week to discuss.


I’ve also just updated the CQ to identify we are currently working with a third party project to resolve a GPL Licensed file contained in the NodeJS content.


I hope this helps.


Best Regards,



From: Victor V. Rubezhny [mailto:vrubezhn@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: December-02-16 7:06 AM
To: Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: WTP PMC communications <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [wtp-pmc] Need PMC opinions on changing type of review for CQ #11306 (Node.js v.4.4.3)



yes, it looks like you have a reason to tell this, but I think like it's better to ask Sharon (or other authority of Eclipse IP Team) for the comments.

I've included Sharon Corbett to the CC's list. Sharon, could you please put your comments on this thread?

Personally me - I don't see a reason to change the type of JSDT and/or WTP project just because we have to review "an executable" that we want to make possible to use and re-distribute in JSDT project. However the the IP due diligence is to be done for that "executable" itself, for sure, in way of License Compatibility Review.

Sharon Corbett clearly told us that field "Project: Type A (or B)" doesn't mean "change JSDT Project to be a Type A (or B) if it's not", but it does mean the only "Type of Review for the certain CQ will be of Type A (or B)" - so no changes on JSDT project were proposed. See her comment #13 for CQ#11306: :

As you may be aware, the Eclipse Foundation has recently made changes to its
Intellectual Property Policy.  These changes will offer Eclipse projects a
choice in the type of IP due diligence they require for their non-eclipse
, as follows:

- Type A – License Compatibility Review Only (New)
- Type B – Full Review (License Compatibility, Provenance Check, Code Scanned
for Anomalies)

In other words, "Project: Type A" indicates the way of reviewing the subject of the CQ (Node.js executable in our case) - it doesn't change anything on JSDT Project itself.

However, if I'm wrong and misunderstood the meaning of those "Type A review" and "Type B review" - definitely we have to ask a question to Eclipse IP Team for the explanation.

Thanks for pointing this.

On 12/02/2016 08:54 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:

On 1 Dec 2016, at 18:46, Victor V. Rubezhny wrote:


As far as I understand it's all about the type of review for the CQ's subject. It shouldn't change the type of the project the CQ is created for.

It does.


It explicitly says "Type A" and "Type B" projects.

Yes the CQ's gets marked with wether the CQ is type A or type B but the implication of that is that the projects that does Type A CQ's can't be a Type B project.

I hope/assume it won't change the vote - but just wanted to be sure everyone was aware it is not just about the type of CQ, it wether all of JSDT (and possibly WTP) are okey moving from Type B to Type A project.



On 12/01/2016 09:22 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:

I don't have a vote here but I'm all for it ;)

But is this not about changing the type of /project/ rather than /review/ ?

i.e. by doing Type A on a CQ then the release of JSDT is going to be a Type A not a Type B and that has a cascading effect on those including it (i.e. WTP and WTP EPP).

I still think this is a good idea I just want to make sure everyone is aware of the implications and it is not just about this single review.


Dear WTP PMC members,

JSDT project aims to redistribute Node.js v.4.4.3 (and later)
executables in order to make it possible to run TS Server [2]
and/or other software to provide different kind of language
related services, like content assisting, validation and so on on
user's machines independently of what's installed.

There are some changes happening on Eclipse IP Policy [3], so now
there are to types of review available:

- Type A – License Compatibility Review Only (New)
- Type B – Full Review (License Compatibility, Provenance Check,
Code Scanned for Anomalies)

With all these changes, we'd like to change the type of the review
for CQ #11306 [1] from "B" (Full Review, in which it was initially
introduced) to "A" (License Compatibility Review"), which, in our
opinion, is the most suitable for our needs.

Could you please reply with your vote "+1" for such a change or
"-1" against it?

[1] -
node.js, Version: 4.4.3

[2] -
TypeScript, Version: 1.8.10

[3] -
Eclipse Foundation IP Policy

Thanks in advance,
Victor Rubezhny,

wtp-pmc mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit



Back to the top