I'll review the language in the handbook to ensure
that it is clear that a project committer needs to use the PMC
mailing list to request (and receive) PMC approval.
In terms of timing, the process says that we're supposed to
have that PMC approval before we start the one-week period of
community review. The EMO generally waits until all of the
requirements (the IP Log and PMC approval) are in hand before
scheduling the review. Lately, however, we've been taking a
bit more of a relaxed approach of optimistically scheduling
the review and accepting PMC approval before we declare
success on that review. Note that PMC approval and IP Log
review/approval are separate/independent things that can be
executed in parallel.
Whether or not a PMC member can approve their own requests
is left to the PMC to decide. The EMO will accept a +1 from
any PMC member; but tends to wait before recording the +1 for
a bit to give other PMC members a chance to argue (since
arguments occur rarely, we've found that the "EMO dragging its
feet a bit" method is lowest impact on everybody; i.e. way
easier than calling a formal vote).
FWIW, the PMC +1 requirement serves a few purposes. The EMO
depends on the PMC to ensure that the project is operating in
an open, transparent, and meritocratic manner as defined by
the EDP's Open Source Rules of Engagement. The PMC is closer
to the project than the EMO, and so is better positioned to
know whether or not the release is within the bounds of the
project's scope and operating in accordance with the mission
and scope of the top-level project's charter. Further, the
PMC, being closer to the project than the EMO, is better
positioned to know if there are "shenanigans" (related to
intellectual property; operating in an open, transparent, and
vendor neutral manner; etc.) that the EMO needs to know about.
Finally, the PMC approval requirement, makes sure that at
least one committer from the project is subscribed to the PMC
mailing list and able to represent the project's interests in
conversations that occur on that list.
Anyway... the EMO will accept this note as a +1... first
thing tomorrow morning.
Regarding "Type A or B"... we changed the IP Policy in late
2019 to remove the notion of Type B. All third party due
diligence is now license certification only (what we had
formally referred to as "Type A"). The field needs to be
removed. I've opened a long-overdue issue to take care of
this.
Wayne