Hi Mark.
Content authored by a project committer falls under Figure #1 of the
IP Due Diligence Process [1] which covers:
Written 100% by
Submitting Committer
or Committer on same
Project under the
supervision of the PMC
The real question, I think, is how do we define "under the
supervision of the PMC". If the content was authored after the
individual became a committer, provides functionality that is within
the scope of the project, has been developed in an open and
transparent manner, and the PMC could otherwise reasonably expect
this sort of content to arrive, then you're good. If you already
have a bug open to track and discuss the contribution, you have a
slam-dunk.
A counter example might be some content that you've pulled out of an
old archive that existed before the project was created, or if the
committer disappeared for a month and arrived back with a huge
contribution that nobody expected.
Assuming that this content was authored after the developer gained
committer status, my assessment is that you don't need a CQ.
Does this help?
What's with the poke at Markdown? Did Markdown stop being cool? Did
I miss a memo?
Wayne
[1] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
On 24/03/16 12:21 PM, Mark Stoodley
wrote:
If a project
committer makes a significant
(say > 1000 lines of code) contribution and the contribution
is "new"
content (by which I mean a completely new file or piece of
content; not
modifications to existing content in the project), does that
necessarily
count as an "initial contribution" under the IP process?
The specific example we've got is
the
contribution of our coding standard, which is more than 1000
lines (yeah,
I know) of markdown. Up until this point, we did not have a
documented
coding standard, so technically it's "new content" but I have
to admit, I felt kind of silly opening a CQ for it (which I did
anyway
under the guise of "better safe than sorry" : see https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11134if you're really interested).
It was contributed by a project
committer
so doesn't directly fall under the "> 1000 lines" rule for
non committers.
Do we need a CQ for such content?
Later on, one of our committers
will
be contributing several hundred thousand lines of Just In Time
compiler
code. That code, I will obviously treat as "initial
contribution",
but looking for some guidance on where the threshold is for this
kind of
thing and how pedantic I should be about it.
|
|
Mark
Stoodley |
8200
Warden Avenue |
|
Senior
Software Developer |
Markham,
L6G 1C7 |
IBM
Runtime Technologies |
Canada |
Phone: |
+1-905-413-5831 |
|
|
e-mail: |
mstoodle@xxxxxxxxxx |
|
|
We cannot solve our
problems with the same
thinking we used when we created them - Albert Einstein |
|
|
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
|