Re: [iot-pmc] Avoiding duplication of effort on the PMC

[Jens Reimann <jreimann@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Kai mentioned to start with piggy-back (PB) CQs. Which are probably the most simplest ones.

I think one thing worth mentioning is that Wayne initially explained that some PMCs might want to limit the choices of dependencies which projects are allowed to use under a top level project. IIRC he mentioned Birt/Reporting as an example.

But in the IoT PMC we decided to not limit dependencies in that way. If a project wants to go with a specific dependency then that is fine. We only do try to motivate projects to re-use CQs when possible. e.g. use a more recent minor version of a library if a CQ for that is already approved.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Ian Craggs <icraggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What I was going to ask, when the call ended abruptly, is, is there much danger of two or more PMC members starting to look at a CQ or release review request in parallel, and some wasting their effort?  Is this not likely in practice?

I think Kai (or was it Jens?) was cut off while suggesting on which CQs to start.

--
Ian Craggs
icraggs@xxxxxxxxxx                 IBM United Kingdom
Eclipse: IoT PMC & Paho Project Lead & Mosquitto Committer

_______________________________________________
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

--

Jens Reimann
Senior Software Engineer / EMEA ENG Middleware
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14
85630 Grasbrunn
Germany
phone: +49 89 2050 71286
_____________________________________________________________________________

Red Hat GmbH, www.de.redhat.com,
Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill