Hi all,
I'd vote for +1 for the two CQs.
Cheers,
Jim
On 3/17/2016 11:02 PM, Wayne Beaton
wrote:
A little more than the +1 flag is required for "works with" CQs.
For "works with" CQs, the IP Policy requires that the PMC review
the request and document the process in a public forum. This
typically takes the form of a request followed by other PMC
members indicating their agreement that the designation is
appropriate with +1 in the mailing list. Generally three +1s are
enough. When agreement has been reached, post a link to the
discussion archive in a bug comment.
The IP Team will oftentimes refer to this as a "PMC Discussion".
Wayne
On 17/03/16 03:50 PM, Rob Emanuele
wrote:
+1, but when I went to set the PMC approved flag,
I found the submitter (Ryan) has already PMC approved it.
The process has been that other PMC members would approve
the CQ's for projects. So in this case the process went
exactly as I figured it would go except the CQ's were
already +1'd, so we should avoid +1'ing our own CQs in the
future.
Thanks,
Rob
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
|