Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [locationtech-pmc] Upcoming release review for LocationTech Spatial4j 0.8
I'll review the language in the handbook to ensure that it is clear that a project committer needs to use the PMC mailing list to request (and receive) PMC approval.

In terms of timing, the process says that we're supposed to have that PMC approval before we start the one-week period of community review. The EMO generally waits until all of the requirements (the IP Log and PMC approval) are in hand before scheduling the review. Lately, however, we've been taking a bit more of a relaxed approach of optimistically scheduling the review and accepting PMC approval before we declare success on that review. Note that PMC approval and IP Log review/approval are separate/independent things that can be executed in parallel.

Whether or not a PMC member can approve their own requests is left to the PMC to decide. The EMO will accept a +1 from any PMC member; but tends to wait before recording the +1 for a bit to give other PMC members a chance to argue (since arguments occur rarely, we've found that the "EMO dragging its feet a bit" method is lowest impact on everybody; i.e. way easier than calling a formal vote).

FWIW, the PMC +1 requirement serves a few purposes. The EMO depends on the PMC to ensure that the project is operating in an open, transparent, and meritocratic manner as defined by the EDP's Open Source Rules of Engagement. The PMC is closer to the project than the EMO, and so is better positioned to know whether or not the release is within the bounds of the project's scope and operating in accordance with the mission and scope of the top-level project's charter. Further, the PMC, being closer to the project than the EMO, is better positioned to know if there are "shenanigans" (related to intellectual property; operating in an open, transparent, and vendor neutral manner; etc.) that the EMO needs to know about. Finally, the PMC approval requirement, makes sure that at least one committer from the project is subscribed to the PMC mailing list and able to represent the project's interests in conversations that occur on that list.

Anyway... the EMO will accept this note as a +1... first thing tomorrow morning.

Regarding "Type A or B"... we changed the IP Policy in late 2019 to remove the notion of Type B. All third party due diligence is now license certification only (what we had formally referred to as "Type A"). The field needs to be removed. I've opened a long-overdue issue to take care of this.

Wayne

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:04 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I reviewed the Eclipse Project Handbook, and I *think* I'm supposed to ask for an approval by the PMC:
https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#release

The review materials must be approved by the PMC; the project lead or a designated project committer should send an email to the PMC’s mailing list with a request for approval. The PMC will respond with feedback or a simple +1 indicating approval.

Here's my +1.
It's a little unclear as to the relative timing of this relative to the release review, which is scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday).

I've gone about deploying Spatial4j 0.8 into Apache Lucene/Solr master to run tests to see that it works.  I can see some additional interface methods cause the need to write some trivial convenience methods (Spatial4j is not yet on Java 8, so doesn't benefit from default methods) but most Spatial4j users wouldn't implement their own implementations of these interfaces any way.
 
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer


On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 9:02 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello LocationTech PMC,

I know you haven't heard from me in a long while.  Spatial4j is in maintenance mode but it's time now to do a release.  It's been 3 years since I last did this so please bear with me if I screw up.  The release record is here:


The IP Log was submitted and approved.  The release records contain the list of changes.  When the form asked me for Type A vs Type B of IP diligence, I chose "A" because there are no entirely new dependencies, only some version bumps.  Furthermore, Spatial4j only has works-with and build dependencies; nothing fundamentally required.

The release review is on the 18th, a Wednesday.

If you are using Spatial4j, then you can try out v0.8 SNAPSHOT here:

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
_______________________________________________
locationtech-pmc mailing list
locationtech-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/locationtech-pmc


--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22

Back to the top