Re: [eclipse-pmc] Do we still need to file CQs?

["Daniel Megert" <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alex

I don't want to
base my judgement on a blog post. However, Wayne also sent this to the
committers with https://www.eclipse.org/lists/eclipse.org-committers/msg01241.html.

To be honest it
leaves a lot of holes/questions to me. Here are some things that look fuzzy
to me;

> CQs are not required for third-party
content in all cases. In the case of third-party content due diligence, CQs are
now only used to track the vetting process. 
What does "In
the case of third-party content due diligence, CQs are
now only used to track the vetting process. "
mean?

CQs are no longer required before third-party
content is introduced.  
Looks like being
listed on clearlydefined does not necessarily mean we can use it  The
project, i.e. we as PMC have to make that decision and then decide whether
to file a CQ. See also above point.

The only thing
that's clear is that no piggyback CQs are needed anymore. However, the
official document (https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Contribution_Questionnaire#Piggyback_CQs)
still says otherwise. Unless the official documents are updated I would
vote against changing anything.

What's also unclear/undefined
is the process regarding Orbit.

There's supposed
to be a tool that detects the dependencies but AFAIK it's not complete
yet. This would leave us in a state where we do not have a correct IP log.

Dani



From:
       Aleksandar
Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
       30.06.2020
17:18
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
[eclipse-pmc] Do we still need to file CQs?
Sent
by:        eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Last week Wayne posted some updates on
the IP process [1].  Please pay special attention to "Leverage
other sources of license information for third-party content." and
"ClearlyDefined is a trusted source of license
information." paragraphs . 
It's worth noting that PB CQs are no
longer needed too.
According to this I could have skipped
filing CQ for ICU4J 67.1 [2] and rather pointed to clearlydefined.io[3] and get it contributed to Orbit based on that.
That would be a huge reduction for releng
as right now updating deps is still a lengthy and painful process involving
many steps by committer/pmc/IP team/orbit committer and etc.

Let's discuss at some of the next PMC
meetings when we have everyone.

[1] https://waynebeaton.wordpress.com/2020/06/25/updates-to-the-eclipse-ip-due-diligence-process/
[2] https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22320
[3] https://clearlydefined.io/definitions/maven/mavencentral/com.ibm.icu/icu4j/67.1

-- 
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse Team_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc