Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] PMC or parent TLP-less projects
TL;DR: the changes that we're making the IP Due Diligence Process provides a solution to the problem.

As Ed mentioned, we're taking the PMC off of the critical path for the IP Due Diligence Process. With the Eclipse Dash License Tool and our migration over to IPLab we're no longer requiring PMC involvement in the approval of third party content reviews (and have reduced the requirement for a lot of reviews), and we're extending this to include all third party content (i.e., content that is not delivered via the Dash tool) and project content contributions.

Our engagement with the PMC on intellectual property matters will take more of a form of getting their assistance as needed to work out issues as we discover them. We've discussed this somewhat on calls, but I owe a more lengthy discussion (I'm try to capture as complete a picture as possible on issue 1194).

In the meantime, I've unblocked the CQ in my capacity as PMC member.

Note that with that particular CQ, a PMC member noticed that the CQ process had not been completed and provided instructions to assist the committer. That is, the Technology PMC created value for the project. Full disclosure: the PMC member was me, but I noticed the CQ while operating in my capacity as PMC member.

Regarding the restructuring review (tracked here), AFAICT the PMC has not been engaged yet (I don't see anything in the mail archive). Also, the end of review date is set for June 15/2022, so the PMC is hardly blocking this (note that you can ask EMO for an earlier date: the EDP only requires a week of community review). If anything, we have an opportunity here to make it more clear who should be asking for what. It doesn't appear clear, for example, that the EMO expects the project team to contact the PMC to request their review and approval. We'll tweak the issue template to make this expectation more clear.

The nature of the Eclipse Technology PMC is such that it doesn't do very much to "create any value" for the projects under its purview. This is by design. The PMC doesn't, for example, attempt to make any sense of how the projects under the TLP relate to one another, impose any themes or whatnot on releases, or make requirements regarding timing of code freezes as other PMCs do. What the Technology PMC does do is look at the projects operating under its purview to ensure that they're following the open source rules of engagement (generally at the behest of the EMO). In multiple recent examples, they've helped projects get unstuck and rebooted due to dysfunction. They play a critical role in our governance.

Finally, on behalf of the Eclipse Technology PMC, I welcome volunteers to join the ranks of the PMC.

Wayne

On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 8:31 AM Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


The role of the PMC is baked into our Bylaws and our IP Policy. Changing or removing the role of PMCs would be a very large task, and goes well beyond simply changing the EDP.

On 2022-06-02 6:18 a.m., Mickael Istria wrote:
Hi all,

We discussed in some not too old call the capability of having projects without a PMC, or could we say being their own PMC, their own top-level project and thus being more autonomous on many things
How feasible would that be? Any idea when this can be implemented?

I'm asking that because these days, I think the Technology PMC is a bottleneck in m2e development; and I don't remember the Technology PMC has not created any value for the m2e project for a long time. So m2e would be better without having to deal with Technology PMC.
Note that it's not blaming the Technology PMC and its members in any way, same could be said for some other projects and other PMCs, it just happen that m2e is my current example. This is more discussing the concept of PMC or having a parent Top Level Project not being best for m2e -and probably others- in general.

Cheers,

--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse IDE developer, for Red Hat Developers

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
--

Mike Milinkovich

Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation AISBL

Twitter:@mmilinkov

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council


--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation


My working day may not be your working day! Please don’t feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside of your normal working hours.

Back to the top