Okay then, +1 from me.
Wayne
On 06/15/2013 02:11 AM, Jody Garnett
wrote:
Afternoon Wayne:
I did check with Sharon first
and understand that this initial NSIS build dependency is just
that … only a build dependency. It will allow us to keep our
NSIS installer script in the codebase. She already advised me
that I would need to submit the NSIS source code (at least for
the modules we use) in as a second CQ request.
So until such time as this
second CQ is submitted, we would not be distributing an
installer from LocationTech.
Thanks for the update on the
mailing list front, it was is one of the first things projects
migrating to OSGeo ask for so I did not anticipate it being an
unusual request. I would really like to pick up sticks and
shut this particular mailing list down.
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.
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):
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”.
Essentially, the PMC needs to discuss the
nature of the dependency, and document their
decision (in a public forum).
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:
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?)
--
|
Subject:
Re: PSC decision on NSIS installer |
|
From:
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date:
06/14/2013 01:07 PM |
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.
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):
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”.
Essentially, the PMC needs to discuss the
nature of the dependency, and document
their decision (in a public forum).
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:
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?)
--
|
