| [technology-pmc] Definition of "Under the Supervision of the PMC" |
|
Greetings Technology PMC! I've spent some time this morning reviewing the "contribution" CQs in IPZilla. There were a couple of CQs that didn't need to be there. I have communicated with the projects and these CQs have been withdrawn. This is mostly just FYI. Figure #2 of the Eclipse Legal Process poster [1] identifies a very specific set of conditions: -- Written 100% by employees of the same employer as the Submitting Committer: (a) under the supervision of the PMC; and (b) where the employer has signed a Member Committer Agreement. -- If you follow the flow from this figure to the bottom (assuming that you make it past the "cryptography" part), then a CQ is not required and the code can be simply committed into a project source code repository. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Except for the "under the supervision of the PMC" part. I regard a contribution to have been developed "under the supervision of the PMC" if the code was written in response to a pre-existing bug (i.e. the code was written after the bug was created), or if the code was written to address a specific plan item (i.e. the plan item being documented before the code was written), or if the code represents the natural evolution of some existing functionality. Is everybody cool with this definition? Wayne [1] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf --
Wayne Beaton The Eclipse Foundation Twitter: @waynebeaton   |