[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Improving license check for dependencies
|
> On Mar 20, 2020, at 15:24, Jonah Graham <jonah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Therefore, for example, the Eclipse PMC, can no longer rely on CQs to track new dependencies in their collective projects.
They cannot rely on CQs. However, they can still implement a rule that requires their projects to seek PMC approval for *any* dependency they want. A PMC really has super powers to some extend. :)
> Therefore it seems to me if we have this new IP policy in place, turning off the PMC involvement now makes sense.
The questions is: do we really need to turn off anything?
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 08:35, Jim Hughes <jnh5y@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On the PMC approval front, I think I'm hearing that I could work with
> the LocationTech PMC to change our ROE to allow for self-approvals of
> CQs?
Sort of. If you become part of the PMC you will share the responsibility. Thus, you can self-approve your own CQs *if* the PMC is fine with that. The EDP and the IP policy do not forbid that.
> On Mar 20, 2020, at 16:12, Daniel Megert <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > To address Dani's issues of Eclipse PMC case it seems the Eclipse PMC may add a requirement of a +1 of the IP Log Review instead?
> This is already required today for all IP Log reviews..
🤔 I think this is something the Eclipse PMC implemented. At Technology PMC we do not review the IP Logs. This is done by EMO/IP team.
-Gunnar
