[technology-pmc] Our role in the IP process

[Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey folks.

I'm spending some quality time with CQ 2627 [1]. I think that we may 
have overstepped our bounds with this CQ.

IMHO, our (PMC) role in this process it to provide a technical 
checkpoint. Essentially, we answer the question "does this make sense, 
technically?" (we also do some rudimentary copyright/license checking, 
but the technical part is the biggie).

When we see something that doesn't sit right with us, I see it as our 
role to try and make it right. In this regard, we can suggest 
alternatives. In this particular case, we have asked about alternative 
libraries that have already been vetted by the IP process, and the use 
of more recent versions. I think these are good questions. However, I 
believe that we need to leave an opening for the project to respond. We 
need to allow the project to provide a reasonable rationalization (a few 
sentences will do) for the approval of something that doesn't sit quite 
right with us...

As a general rule, the Technology PMC should not approve a CQ unless 
there is explicit agreement from the project.

In this particular case, I think we may have jumped the gun a little. 
Comment #12 on this CQ is okay, but the PMC_Approved bit shouldn't have 
been flipped before the project agreed to the newer version.

FWIW, I tend to agree that we should encourage projects to (a) use code 
that has already been approved, (b) use Eclipse project code where 
possible, and (c) use the most recent versions of code possible.

Maybe we should start up a Technology PMC Policies wiki page...

Thoughts?

Wayne

[1] https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2627