| Re: [udig-devel] PSC decision on NSIS installer |
On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 3:09 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Hi Jody.
The Technology Top-Level project is an umbrella. But it's more than that. The Project Management Committee (PMC) is responsible for ensuring that projects are functioning in accordance with the development process and following IP rules.
"Works with" CQs (defined in [1]) let a project, for example, make use of libraries that might not otherwise be approved by the IP process and so additional oversight and tracking is required. For completeness, "works with" dependencies should not be distributed directly by the project.
For "works with" dependencies, we require that the use of the dependency be discussed in a public forum by the PMC. Generally, the preferred forum is the PMC's mailing list (technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in this case). Over time, as more projects join LocationTech, the PMC list will become a more obvious place to hold these discussions.
In the case of the NSIS installer, as a PMC member, I would ask, for example, about the nature the output of running the tool. Does it generate output that contains NSIS IP that we'd be distributing. I'd assume that in the process of generating an installer, some form of installation technology would be included in the output. That only matters, of course, if the installer is actually being used by the build to generate output that is intended to be distributed from locationtech.org.
More often, however, these discussions tend to be short.
For "normal" prerequisite dependencies (that will be subject to the full IP due diligence process), the PMC only needs to sign off on the CQ itself. Notification of these CQs will be sent to the PMC mailing list, but no additional discussion needs to happen there.
At this point, the distinction between the PMC and the uDig project is pretty thin, given that uDig is currently the only project under LocationTech Technology.
I apologize that the discussion regarding the move of the existing uDig mailing list was stalled. We've never moved a mailing list before, so we've gotten a little hung up on the potential legal issues around terms of use. I've escalated the issue.
Wayne
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
On 06/11/2013 07:46 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
So given that we have many dependencies to go through, some of which predate the formation of a PMC what do you advise we do?a) link to the email conversation where the dependency was discussed on the mailing list?b) Have a discussion like this one where the current PMC confirm the dependency is acceptable?
Sounds like an email discussion is needed, ideally I would like to migrate the this udig-devel email list over to location tech, while I have raised a ticket so far nothing has come of it? The archives are here (http://lists.refractions.net/pipermail/udig-devel/) with each month being available as a gripped text file for import.
--Jody Garnett
On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 2:40 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
I think that you mean "PMC" (Project Management Committee).
Sharon is asking for proof that the LocationTech PMC has publicly discussed the designation of NSIS as a build and test dependency.
Build and test dependencies are categorized as a "works with" dependency as defined in the Guidelines for the Review of Third-Party Dependencies.
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
Which states (in part):Essentially, the PMC needs to discuss the nature of the dependency, and document their decision (in a public forum).It will be the responsibility of each PMC to document all "works with" and "prerequisite"
dependencies between Eclipse Foundation code and non-Eclipse Foundation code. As part of
this process, the PMCs will be expected to make a determination whether a dependency is a
“works with” or a “prerequisite”.
For many such requests, the PMC members weigh in with simple +1. Here's an example of what this often looks like:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/technology-pmc/msg04300.html
This link was pasted in a comment on the corresponding IPZilla record.
Normally, this discussion occurs in the PMC mailing list (i.e. https://www.locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc), but there's no specific rule in that regard. We can start this discussion here if you'd prefer.
Wayne
On 06/11/2013 04:57 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Wayne do you have any guidance on this one?
I have a confusing request from Sharon with respect to our use of NSIS installer. She asks to be pointed at the decision by the PSC to use NSIS as a build tool.
There are two ways for me to read this:
1) Request to point to a historical discussion?
As such it kind of predates the formation of a PSC.The installer was originally contributed by Chris Holmes for uDig 0.4.
Searching down the details:- http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/UDIG-128 One Click Installer
Aside: thanks to Chris Holmes
2) Request to interact with the Eclipse Developer Portal
She may also be asking us to use the developer portal to vote on the dependency request (i.e. I have submitted it as a request to the IP team, perhaps the next step is for the PSC to approve my request?)
--Jody Garnett
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
Hi Jody.
The Technology Top-Level project is an umbrella. But it's more than that. The Project Management Committee (PMC) is responsible for ensuring that projects are functioning in accordance with the development process and following IP rules.
"Works with" CQs (defined in [1]) let a project, for example, make use of libraries that might not otherwise be approved by the IP process and so additional oversight and tracking is required. For completeness, "works with" dependencies should not be distributed directly by the project.
For "works with" dependencies, we require that the use of the dependency be discussed in a public forum by the PMC. Generally, the preferred forum is the PMC's mailing list (technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in this case). While the PMC list is preferred, there is, however, no specific requirement that the PMC list be used; we can use this list. Over time, as more projects join LocationTech, the PMC list will become a more obvious place to hold these discussions.
In the case of the NSIS installer, as a PMC member, I would ask, for example, about the nature the output of running the tool. Does it generate output that contains NSIS IP that we'd be distributing. I'd assume that in the process of generating an installer, some form of installation technology would be included in the output. That only matters, of course, if the installer is actually being used by the build to generate output that is intended to be distributed from locationtech.org.
Very often, these discussions tend to be short.
For "normal" prerequisite dependencies, the PMC only needs to sign off on the CQ itself. Notification of these CQs will be sent to the PMC mailing list, but no additional discussion needs to happen there.
At this point, the distinction between the PMC and the uDig project is pretty thin, given that uDig is currently the only project under LocationTech Technology.
I apologize that the discussion regarding the move of the existing uDig mailing list was stalled. We've never moved a mailing list before, so we've gotten a little hung up on the potential legal issues around terms of use. I've escalated the issue.
Wayne
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
On 06/11/2013 07:46 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
So given that we have many dependencies to go through, some of which predate the formation of a PMC what do you advise we do?a) link to the email conversation where the dependency was discussed on the mailing list?b) Have a discussion like this one where the current PMC confirm the dependency is acceptable?
Sounds like an email discussion is needed, ideally I would like to migrate the this udig-devel email list over to location tech, while I have raised a ticket so far nothing has come of it? The archives are here (http://lists.refractions.net/pipermail/udig-devel/) with each month being available as a gripped text file for import.
--Jody Garnett
On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 2:40 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
I think that you mean "PMC" (Project Management Committee).
Sharon is asking for proof that the LocationTech PMC has publicly discussed the designation of NSIS as a build and test dependency.
Build and test dependencies are categorized as a "works with" dependency as defined in the Guidelines for the Review of Third-Party Dependencies.
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
Which states (in part):Essentially, the PMC needs to discuss the nature of the dependency, and document their decision (in a public forum).It will be the responsibility of each PMC to document all "works with" and "prerequisite"
dependencies between Eclipse Foundation code and non-Eclipse Foundation code. As part of
this process, the PMCs will be expected to make a determination whether a dependency is a
“works with” or a “prerequisite”.
For many such requests, the PMC members weigh in with simple +1. Here's an example of what this often looks like:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/technology-pmc/msg04300.html
This link was pasted in a comment on the corresponding IPZilla record.
Normally, this discussion occurs in the PMC mailing list (i.e. https://www.locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc), but there's no specific rule in that regard. We can start this discussion here if you'd prefer.
Wayne
On 06/11/2013 04:57 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Wayne do you have any guidance on this one?
I have a confusing request from Sharon with respect to our use of NSIS installer. She asks to be pointed at the decision by the PSC to use NSIS as a build tool.
There are two ways for me to read this:
1) Request to point to a historical discussion?
As such it kind of predates the formation of a PSC.The installer was originally contributed by Chris Holmes for uDig 0.4.
Searching down the details:- http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/UDIG-128 One Click Installer
Aside: thanks to Chris Holmes
2) Request to interact with the Eclipse Developer Portal
She may also be asking us to use the developer portal to vote on the dependency request (i.e. I have submitted it as a request to the IP team, perhaps the next step is for the PSC to approve my request?)
--Jody Garnett
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
