https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=169918
From: Janet Campbell
[mailto:janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007
7:24 AM
To: Tim Wagner; 'Bjorn Freeman-Benson'
Cc: 'WTP
PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,and
Group discussions)'
Subject: RE: How should PMC
approvals work in IPzilla (was "IPZilla 1089")
Tim,
|
PMC approval should be indicated by
having a member of the PMC vote +1 on the bug. I have two bugs
open currently in an effort to clarify this. See bug 167103
and 167106.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’d be open to the change you
suggest, though I’m not certain what level of effort this would entail
relative to the benefit. Perhaps you could open a bug to initiate the
discussion? At a minimum this would ensure that the idea is tracked as
we continue to evolve IPZilla.
Thanks,
Janet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: Tim Wagner
[mailto:twagner@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007
2:26 PM
To: Bjorn Freeman-Benson; Janet
Campbell
Cc: WTP
PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,and
Group discussions)
Subject: How should PMC approvals
work in IPzilla (was "IPZilla 1089")
Bjorn/Janet:
Can we clarify the process around PMC
approval for IPzilla items? There seem to be two ways of doing it at the
moment:
- The
approver section of the CQ.
- A
comment in IPzilla from someone on the PMC.
I would actually suggest that an even
better approach would be
- A
field in IPzilla that only a PMC member could set that would indicate
approval (and who approved on behalf of the PMC). At a minimum, even an
IPzilla ID field would be a great start here for record keeping /
searching purposes.
Can one of you comment? I’m happy to
open a bug if something needs to change, but otherwise just educating us would
be sufficient J. Thanks,
-t
From: Tim Wagner
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007
11:23 AM
To: 'WTP
PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,and
Group discussions)'
Cc: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
Kathy Chan
Subject: RE: [wtp-pmc] IPZilla
1089
I added another comment, but in general
this seems odd – either the CQ language that says “approved by
Arthur Ryman” should be definitive or the CQ should be modified to remove
the pseudo-approval section if we’re going to ignore it. Let me ask Janet
and Bjorn what their collective intent is…an actual approval field in
IPzilla would probably be the best solution of all.
From:
wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Brealey
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007
9:39 AM
To: WTP
PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,and
Group discussions)
Cc: WTP
PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,and
Group discussions); wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx; Kathy Chan
Subject: RE: [wtp-pmc] IPZilla
1089
Tim,
there
is a reference to Arthur as the intended approver in the CQ as submitted by me,
but not an actual approval comment from him. They need to hear it from the
horse's mouth as it were, similar to comment 3 in 1052,
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1052#c3.
Cheers - CB.
Chris Brealey
Senior Advisory Technical Manager, Rational Java Web Services, IBM Canada Ltd.
D3-275, D3/ENX/8200/MKM, 8200 Warden Avenue, Markham, Ontario, Canada, L6G 1C7
cbrealey@xxxxxxxxxx, 905.413.6038,
tieline:969.6038, fax:905.413.4920
|
"Tim Wagner"
<twagner@xxxxxxx>
Sent
by: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
01/04/2007
12:20 PM
|
Please respond
to
"WTP PMC communications
\(including coordination, announcements, and
Group discussions\)" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
|
To
|
"WTP PMC communications
\(including coordination, announcements, and
Group discussions\)" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
Kathy Chan/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [wtp-pmc] IPZilla 1089
|
|
Arthur added an approval to 1089 as well, so I
think they’re both taken care of.
In the future, you can have these added to the weekly PMC
call agenda, and then one of us will automatically take on the approval
notation as an action item.
Thanks,
-t
From:
wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Brealey
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:34 AM
To: wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Kathy Chan
Subject: [wtp-pmc] IPZilla 1089
To the WTP PMC members,
as I think you all know, the folks at WSO2 [1] will be contributing a set of
plugins to WTP 2.0 to support Apache Axis2 via our Web services platform [2]. I
have two contribution questionnaires on the go, 1052 [3] and 1089 [4], the
second of which needs a PMC approval comment before we can proceed much
further. Would one of you, perhaps Tim, David or Naci, please post a
"+1" approval note to CQ 1089? Needless to say, drop me a line any
time if you have questions about this work. FYI, Arthur approved 1052, so it's
good to go.
[1] http://www.wso2.com/
[2] http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Axis2_Integration_in_WTP
[3] https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1052
[4] https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1089
Thanks very much,
Cheers - CB.
Chris Brealey
Senior Advisory Technical Manager, Rational Java Web Services, IBM Canada Ltd.
D3-275, D3/ENX/8200/MKM, 8200 Warden Avenue, Markham, Ontario, Canada, L6G 1C7
cbrealey@xxxxxxxxxx, 905.413.6038,
tieline:969.6038, fax:905.413.4920_______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-pmc
