RE: [eclipse-pmc] contributed keyword

[Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The issue really is the scope of "project".
 In popular palance "project" is often used to talk about
"sub-projects".  Can you clarify your usage?  For clarity
on our part, we are using project == top-level project.

A secondary point is that the Eclipse
project sub-projects generally manage commit rights on a per component
basis.  This mindset is pervasive within the team.  it is how
unix group membership is managed, how votes are done, ...  As a result,
there is confusion for people as to who is "in" and who is "out".
 I'm not saying that things should be any different, just pointing
out why there is confusion.  Perhaps this can be clarified by the
IP guidelines.

Jeff

"Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/07/2007 12:16 PM

Please respond to
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; Please respond to
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	<eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	emo@xxxxxxxxxxx, license@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject	RE: [eclipse-pmc] contributed keyword

My apologies if I'm intruding, but hopefully this
EMO perspective will help
the conversation. 

If an individual has the paperwork in place to be a committer on a project
and writes code which is committed to the project's repository then no
further documentation is required. Regardless of whether they are "active"
or "inactive" or work for their former employer. As long as their
paperwork
is in place and up-to-date, they are a committer. 

This would also apply if a committer writes some code which is committed
to
another component within the same project by another committer.

If a committer writes some code which is committed to another project for
which they do not have commit rights (presumably by a second committer),
then they should be documented as a contributor, as commit rights are scoped
to a project. Basically we just want some housekeeping in place so we can
track the origin of the code. Yes, this may mean that a CQ is required
:-(

In the case of a contributor, we don't differentiate between doc, code,
XML,
whatever. If a contribution is made that ends up somewhere in CVS, then
it
should be documented in the IP log and/or whatever mechanism your project
is
using. So the formal definition of what a contribution is not based on
what
the type of artifact is, it is based on whether copywritable material ends
up in CVS or SVN. 

That said, as a practical matter release reviews focus on the copywritten
materials which actually ship in a release. So patches to (for example)
web
projects receive less scrutiny and are lower risk. So I believe the PMC
has
some discretion there if the cost/benefit trade-off is prohibitive.

Basically, the questions that we are always seeking to answer are: can
we
demonstrate *who* wrote this copywritten material, and is there a trail
that
demonstrates that we have the permissions in place to distribute it.
Individuals covered under a committer agreement and employer consent are
obviously in good shape. But since the employer consent forms may be limited
to a specific project, crossing project boundaries require additional
documentation.

I hope this is helpful.

Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx


> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eugene Kuleshov
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:51 AM
> To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [eclipse-pmc] contributed keyword
> 
> 
>   How about partial committers? If committer only have partial
commit
> rights on some project modules. Does his patches to other modules
gets
> "contributed" keyword?
> 
>   regards,
>   Eugene
> 
> 
> Jerome Lanneluc wrote:
> > Now that we know what a non-committer is, can we define what
a
> contribution
> > is ?
> >
> > Does it include:
> >
> > 1. a change to a SDK project ?
> > Obviously yes :-)
> >
> > 2. a change to a doc project ?
> > In the last arch call, we said yes as well
> >
> > 3. a change to a test project ?
> > I would say yes, but what do you think ?
> >
> > 4. a change to a web project ?
> > I'm not sure about this one, What do you think ?
> >
> > 5. a change to a non-SDK project (e.g. the releng projects are
not
> included
> > in the SDK) ?
> > I would say yes, but what do you think ?
> >
> > Or should we say that any change committed to the CVS repository
> related
> > the Eclipse Project is a contribution ?
> >
> > Jerome
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >              Daniel Megert
> >              <daniel_megert@ch
> >              .ibm.com>
> To
> >              Sent by:  
               eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >              eclipse-pmc-bounc
> cc
> >              es@xxxxxxxxxxx
           eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
> >                  
                     eclipse-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> Subject
> >              06/07/2007 10:47
         Re: [eclipse-pmc] contributed
> >              AM    
                   keyword
> >
> >
> >              Please respond
to
> >              eclipse-pmc@eclip
> >                  
se.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good, this means that inactive commiters don't get the 'contributed'
> > keyword as they are still single person commiters on that project.
> >
> > Dani
> >
> >
> >
> >              Philippe P Mulet
> >              <philippe_mulet@f
> >              r.ibm.com>
> To
> >              Sent by:  
               eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >              eclipse-pmc-bounc
> cc
> >              es@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> Subject
> >                  
                     Re:
[eclipse-pmc] contributed
> >              07.06.2007 10:45
         keyword
> >
> >
> >              Please respond
to
> >              eclipse-pmc@eclip
> >                  
se.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Who they work for is irrelevant. The important question is:
> > "Were they committers to the Eclipse SDK project when they
> contributed the
> > patch ?"
> > If answer is no, then use the "contributed" keyword.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >              Daniel Megert
> >              <daniel_megert@ch
> >              .ibm.com>
> To
> >              Sent by:  
               eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >              eclipse-pmc-bounc
> cc
> >              es@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> Subject
> >                  
                     [eclipse-pmc]
contributed
> keyword
> >              07/06/2007 09:27
> >
> >
> >              Please respond
to
> >              eclipse-pmc@eclip
> >                  
se.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just wanted to get clarification about committers that no longer
> actively
> > work on the Eclipse Project. I heard different opinions about
that
> issue
> > during the call e.g. non-active committers should also get the
> > 'contributed' keyword. However, such committers that no longer
work
> for us,
> > signed the single person committer agreement and they are still
> registered
> > as committers and as far as I know they also have the corresponding
> > permission on the server and bugzilla.
> >
> > Can you please clarify. Thanks
> >
> >
> > Dani
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc

_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc