RE: [dsdp-pmc] RE: Process for Code Contributions / Feature Additions

[<mika.hoikkala@xxxxxxxxx>]

OK.

mho 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Gaff, Doug
>Sent: 02 June, 2006 21:15
>To: Bjorn Freeman-Benson; Oberhuber, Martin; DSDP PMC list
>Subject: [dsdp-pmc] RE: Process for Code Contributions / 
>Feature Additions
>
>I'm also ok with that interpretation in the cases below.
>
>My request is that anything a single PMC member approves MUST 
>be copied to dsdp-pmc so the rest of the group is aware.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bjorn Freeman-Benson [mailto:bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1:58 PM
>> To: Oberhuber, Martin; Gaff, Doug
>> Subject: Re: Process for Code Contributions / Feature Additions
>> 
>> Martin, Doug,
>> My view is that each PMC member represents the consensus of 
>the entire 
>> PMC and thus a single PMC member's approval is sufficient. Of course,
>it
>> does mean that you need to be careful who you put on the PMC :-)
>> 
>> Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
>> > Dear PMC & EMO,
>> >
>> > After we had some confusion over what was needed in order 
>to accept 
>> > a new code contribution into our project repositories (single PMC 
>> > member approval, or vote among the PMC), Doug Gaff asked 
>me to check 
>> > and inform you. So here's what I found.
>> >
>> > * The standard toplevel project charter (which also applies for
>dsdp)
>> > says:
>> >
>> >
>http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/Eclipse_Standard_To
>pLevel_Ch
>> > arter_v1.0.php
>> >   "The Development Projecess"
>> >   "[...] The Committers of a Project or component decide which
>changes
>> > may
>> >    be committed to the master code base of a Project or component 
>> > respectively.
>> >    The PMC defines the decision process, but that process must
>include
>> > the
>> >    ability for Committers to veto the change. [...] Common 
>decision 
>> > processes
>> >    include:
>> >    * Retroactive - changes are proactively made by Committers but
>can be
>> >
>> >    vetoed by a single Committer.
>> >    * Proactive [...]
>> >    * Thre Positive [...]"
>> >
>> > It looks like this mostly applies to code changes done by
>committers,
>> > and it looks like most of us are using this first (retroactive)
>option,
>> > i.e. let committers just do their work and veto it later if they
>should
>> > not like it. Would you agree that this should be our process?
>> >
>> > * The Contribution Questionnaire says:
>> >
>http://www.eclipse.org/legal/ContributionQuestionnairePart1-v1.0.php
>> >   "[...] for any significant contribution of content to be 
>committed
>to
>> >   an Eclipse project. Prior to completing this Questionnaire, the 
>> > Committer
>> >   should have technical agreement from the PMC that the 
>new code is 
>> > required.
>> >   [...] please provide the contact info of the PMC member who has
>given
>> >   approval for this contribution"
>> >
>> > So the question is what "The PMC" means in this context. The form
>seems
>> > to imply that a single member's approval is sufficient. For TM,
>we've
>> > had to go through this process for 3 contributions now, 
>with more to 
>> > follow since IBM has more code to contribute that was 
>written before 
>> > joining the TM project and has not been put into the initial 
>> > contribution.
>> > Would you agree that a single PMC member's approval is sufficient?
>> >
>> > * The Committer Guidelines also say:
>> >   http://www.eclipse.org/legal/committerguidelines.php
>> >   "All content submitted through any channel other than the Eclipse
>> >   Foundation website must be approved by the PMC, and submitted to
>> >   the EMO, via the Contribution Questionnaire, for due diligence 
>> > approval,
>> >   prior to being committed to the CVS repository. [...] 
>The analysis
>> >   performed by the PMC is usually one of a purely 
>technical nature."
>> >
>> > Again, it is not clear whether "the PMC" is a single PMC 
>member or a 
>> > vote among all PMC members.
>> >
>> > My personal feeling is, that a single PMC member's approval should 
>> > be sufficient in order to keep the process smooth -- in 
>most cases, 
>> > it's only one of the PMC members who has sufficient technical
>insight
>> > into the particular area of contribution anyways.
>> >
>> > Comments?
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Martin
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>---------------------------------/()\--------------------------
>---------
>> > Dipl.-Ing. Martin Oberhuber
>mailto:martin.oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Member of Technical Staff          Phone  (UTC +1h): +43 (662)
>457915-85
>> > Wind River Systems (Salzburg) GmbH              Fax: +43 (662)
>457915-6
>> > Jakob-Haringer-Str.8, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
>http://www.windriver.com
>> > ----------------------- How Smart Things Think
>-------------------------
>> >
>> >
>_______________________________________________
>dsdp-pmc mailing list
>dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
>