RE: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification on PMC CQ voting process (Was: Please Vote

["Gaff, Doug" <doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe 2 non-project PMC members is enough. That will put some additional
eyes on the submission. I also thinking a voting window would be good,
since not everyone can respond right away. How's this:

"CQ PMC Votes: The PMC member for the project containing the CQ will
request a vote on the PMC. The vote is held open for 7 business days.
Two additional PMC members must vote +1, and there can be no -1 votes.
After the vote is approved, the project's PMC member will approve the CQ
in ipzilla."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Kurzke
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 2:00 PM
> To: DSDP PMC list
> Subject: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification on PMC CQ voting process (Was:
Please
> Vote on CQ 2761, CQ 2762 AND CQ 2769)
> 
> 
> I also dislike the overhead and "noise" of the votes we had in the
> past.
> 
> In many ways i dont feel qualified to "object" to the technical needs
> of
> another project. (As Marting points out correctly, the PMC vote is not
> an IP check).
> On the other hand, in the past - this process has led to a valuable
> input for my Project, Martin pointed out a good alternative for a
> compression library which he already uses. This reduced duplication in
> code and legal processing.
> 
> 
> 
> I also agree with Doug that the concern is that the policy of "*Any
> one*
> member of the PMC can approve the request", and the fact that each
> project lead is also a PMC member will result in the de-facto that
> every
> *Project Lead* will approve their own CQ.
> This effectively takes the PMC out of the loop.
> 
> 
> How is this problem solved in other projects?
> 
> Could we do an "Any member of the PMC who is not on this project"
rule?
> Or a "at least 2 members of PMC" need to vote?
> Or will this lead to an "I approve yours if you approve mine" buddy
> system?
> 
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> -Christian
> 
> 
> 
> Gaff, Doug wrote:
> >
> > Maybe unanimous is too much to expect, but I don't like the idea of
> > Project Leads approving their own CQ's without discussion by the
PMC.
> > There needs to be a reasonable amount of cross-checking for CQ's.
> >
> > What do others think?
> >
> > *From:* dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Oberhuber,
> Martin
> > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2008 9:20 AM
> > *To:* DSDP PMC list
> > *Subject:* RE: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification: Please Vote on CQ 2761,CQ
> > 2762 AND CQ 2769
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I find it tiresome trying to get unanimous PMC approval on the
per-CQ
> > level.
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, the "PMC Approved" on CQs is not in order to
> assess
> >
> > possibility of any IP problems -- it is merely to assess whether we
> > actually
> >
> > want some functionality on the project, or not. Primary reason for
> "not
> >
> > wanting" some functionality is if we know of duplicate similar
> > functionality
> >
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > That being said, my understanding is that the "PMC Approved" is on a
> >
> > per-functionality granularity, and who approved the "JM Unit
Library"
> >
> > would implicitly also approve the "1.0 and 1.1" versions. Also note
> that
> >
> > in case somebody finds an issue after the fact, it is still possible
> to
> >
> > revoke things (it's long enough until something gets actually
> shipped,
> >
> > and the IP Team does a good job too).
> >
> > Other PMC's allow a single PMC member to approve CQ's on behalf of
> >
> > the entire PMC. Trying to get unanimous consent slows things down
> >
> > and is work for each of us. Do we all really want this?
> >
> > +1 on CQ 2769 under the old policy,
> >
> > and I request a *change of policy* to allow single PMC members
> approve
> >
> > on behalf of the entire PMC, provided that they (a) seek assistance
> of
> >
> > other PMC members if they are not technological lead in some area,
> >
> > and (b) inform the PMC by E-Mail about their rationale of approving.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> >
> > *Martin Oberhuber*, Senior Member of Technical Staff, *Wind River*
> >
> > Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
> >
> > http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> >
> >
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> >
> >     *From:* dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >     [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Christian
> Kurzke
> >     *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2008 8:59 PM
> >     *To:* DSDP PMC list
> >     *Cc:* Paula Gustavo-WGP010; Eric Hildum-XFQ473
> >     *Subject:* [dsdp-pmc] Clarification: Please Vote on CQ 2761,CQ
> >     2762 AND CQ 2769
> >
> >
> >
> >     There is some confusion around those CQ's, the initial CQ 2761
> was
> >     covering TWO Jar files, and the Legal team advised to create
> >     separate CQ's for each Jar file.
> >     The new CQ 2769 is for the second library.
> >
> >
> >     Please vote for the missing CQ's.
> >
> >     Here is a link to the IP-Zilla entries:
> >
> >
> >     The code for the plugin itself is covered by CQ 2762 :
> >     https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2762
> >
> >     The supporting Library for CLDC 1.0 is covered by CQ 2761 :
> >     https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2761
> >     <https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2769>
> >     The supporting Library for CLDC 1.1 is covered by CQ 2769 :
> >     https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2769
> >
> >
> >     Overview of current votes:
> >
> >     *PMC Member*
> >
> >
> >
> >     *CQ 2761 :
> >     JM Unit CLDC 1.0 Library*
> >
> >
> >
> >     *CQ 2769 :
> >     JM Unit CLDC 1.1 Library*
> >
> >
> >
> >     *CQ 2762 :
> >     JmeUnit Plugin*
> >
> >     Doug Gaff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     +1
> >
> >     Pawel Piech
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     +1
> >
> >     Shigeki Moride
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     +1
> >
> >     Christian Kurzke
> >
> >
> >
> >     +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     +1
> >
> >     Mark Rogalski
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     Martin Oberhuber
> >
> >
> >
> >     +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     +1
> >
> >     Eric Cloninger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     +1
> >
> >     Dave Russo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     Christian Kurzke wrote:
> >
> >
> >     More Info:
> >
> >     We received a contribution to MTJ from Nokia via Bugzilla.
> >     The contribution was created by Nokia, is submitted under the
> >     terms of the EPL.
> >
> >     This contribution provides a "JUnit" like feature for JavaME
> >     developers, using a Apache 2 licensed open source library.
> >
> >
> >     The code for the plugin itself is covered by CQ 2762 :
> >     https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2762
> >
> >         The supporting Library is covered by CQ 2769 :
> >         https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2769
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >
> >     dsdp-pmc mailing list
> >
> >     dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >     https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
> >
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dsdp-pmc mailing list
> > dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-pmc mailing list
> dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc