Re: [iot-pmc] Pre-Requisite request for libevent

[Jens Reimann <jens.reimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A good question ...

a) I am not sure if this is decided on a per-top-level-project basis
b) If it is, I would say that the majority of the PMC members has to
vote +1. If there is a -1, then I would start a discussion around the
cause for this.

I think that just waiting for a veto can be quite problematic. If nobody
cares you never get a veto although the decision might actually require
veto. So if you want to push a problematic decision you just wait for
summer when everybody is in holiday and post you CQ then ;-)

I think this is a question which Wayne should have a look at.


Just in general how I understood the process for workswith and
pre-requisite requests:

-) Some project posts a CQ for this
-) The PMC starts a public discussion around this (either via e-mail or
using other ways, I would suggest the mailinglist though). The
discussion can be started at any time (before or after the CQ has been
started)
-) The result of the discussion should be if the request can be approved
and if it is a workswith or pre-requisite dependency. So it is not only
about the approval.
-) Once the decision is made (see topics "a" and "b" above)
-) If the result is a workswith dependency, then the result is
transfered to IPzilla by the PMC and approved there
-) If the result is a pre-requisite dependency, then the PMC has to
inform EMO and EMO will decide if it is a "exempt" or "non-excempt"
pre-requisite. PMC will advise, but EMO will decide.
-) The CQ is processed by the IP team

But I am not sure who will update the IPzilla when/if EMO has to decide.

Jens

On 09/02/2014 12:19 PM, Kai Kreuzer wrote:
> Ok, Jens just corrected me that this discussion is necessary in any case.
> So I vote +1 and wonder what process we should agree on within the PMC to deal with such CQs?
> Shall we:
> - approve if there is no veto within 1 week?
> - approve if at least x PMC members gave a +1?
>
> What is a common practice within other PMCs?
>
> Regards;
> Kai
>
>
> Am 02 Sep 2014 um 11:52 schrieb Kai Kreuzer <kai@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Looks straight forward to me, I just added a +1.
>>
>> Just to understand the process: Is it required to send e-mails to the PMC mailing list or should the PMC leads receive bugzilla notifications about pending CQs?
>>
>> And under which conditions is a discussion necessary? From what I had learned so far is that pre-req CQs are actually seen less strict than other CQs, where no discussion is required. I am asking as I actually still have to create a pre-req request for my whole SmartHome target platform, which is pretty big…
>>
>> Sorry, if this are stupid questions, but I am strill trying to get into the new role and welcome any mentoring.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kai
>>
>> Am 02 Sep 2014 um 11:23 schrieb Jens Reimann <jens.reimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> Hello PMC,
>>>
>>> the Eclipse SCADA Project would like to add "libevent" as a
>>> pre-requisite. It is expected that the library is already on the user's
>>> machine. Neither the source nor the binaries will be distributed.
>>>
>>> This is the discussion for CQ8604 [1].
>>>
>>> This request needs to be approved (+1).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jens
>>>
>>> [1] https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8604
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iot-pmc mailing list
>>> iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc
>> _______________________________________________
>> iot-pmc mailing list
>> iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc
> _______________________________________________
> iot-pmc mailing list
> iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc