[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification on PMC CQ voting process (Was:PleaseVote on CQ 2761, CQ 2762 AND CQ 2769)
|
Martin and I seem to be the only ones interested in arguing about this.
:)
I suggest we continue this discussion at our PMC meeting next week. This
will be easier on the phone.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:55 AM
> To: DSDP PMC list
> Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification on PMC CQ voting process
> (Was:PleaseVote on CQ 2761, CQ 2762 AND CQ 2769)
>
>
> I dislike having to wait 1 week for potential -1 votes.
>
> Since I like my own requests processed quickly, this would
> essentially put me in the same position as we have now --
> trying to get all members to vote quickly so I don't have
> to wait the whole week.
>
> We're talking about CQ's here, but what about approvals for
> new committers for instance? - Just having been voted in
> as a committer on the Eclipse Platform Core component, I
> can say that McQ's +1 for the Eclipse PMC was there within
> a day. Also, when I asked Bjorn a long time ago about this,
> his answer was clearly that "a single PMC member in good
> standing with the PMC can make approvals in the spirit
> of the PMC". But I can certainly ask other PMC's how they
> are handling this.
>
> I'd like to pose again the question in what respect we're
> afraid of somebody not being able to make a vote for a
> different project. I'm in favor of a kind of "parallel
> approval process". I think that we can be optimistic and
> allow things like committer provisioning or CQ processing
> proceed quickly, but leave a back-door for the unexpected
> case: allow PMC members to veto a CQ after the fact.
>
> Since a veto after the fact would have impact on those
> processing the CQ or new committer request, we'd have to
> ask them whether they are OK with potentially revoking
> approval and thus potentially making some of their work
> invalid.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
> Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
> http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
> > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:19 PM
> > To: DSDP PMC list
> > Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] Clarification on PMC CQ voting
> > process (Was: PleaseVote on CQ 2761, CQ 2762 AND CQ 2769)
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
