Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [openhw-pmc] PMC role in the Eclipse intellectual property due diligence process
Mike has already been approved by the board of directors as the PMC Lead. When we were setting this up, Mike was identified as the obvious candidate as he had the more technical role, providing technical oversight of the various efforts underway in OpenHW Group. Assuming that my understanding of Mike's role is accurate, I believe that he is still the best candidate for PMC Lead.

Let's identify other PMC members and consider adding additional leads later. At least in part, we can do this now and have a more rounded PMC now, rather than wait until the October board meeting to get approval to add PMC Leads. According to the rules, the existing PMC members (i.e., Mike) need to vote on new candidates. If the candidates are ready to accept the responsibility and Mike approves, I can solicit EMO(ED) approval right now and get this rolling.

What does the PMC do?

OpenHW Group is in a bit of a special state right now as it only has one actual open source project under its purview. That makes the PMC mandate a little thin. As the project space grows, however, the role of the PMC will become more important. 

In the most general sense, the PMC provides oversight and guidance (especially with regard to cross project issues) to projects under their purview as a part of the governance structure defined by the Eclipse Development Process.

In practical terms, the role of the PMC is to approve intellectual property contributions, elections, and EDP reviews for projects under their purview.

That is, the PMC has responsibility to ensure that the projects operating under their purview are successfully implementing the Eclipse Development Process and operating under the terms outlined by the charter of the corresponding top level project. In part, this means that they ensure that committer elections follow the rules (e.g., that candidates have demonstrated sufficient merit), and that the work being undertaken projects fall within the defined scope of the project and the scope defined in the top level project charter. The various reviews provide opportunities for projects to demonstrate that they're operating in an open and transparent manner as defined by the EDP and are implementing the Eclipse IP Policy; the EMO looks to the PMC to help us determine if these things are actually happening (and that the content of releases fit in with scope).

The PMC is not expected to be an expert in every bit of technology that is developed under their purview. The PMC doesn't need to be involved in the day-to-day operations of the projects operating under their purview, but does need to have some sense that the projects are progressing.

The PMC, as part of the leadership chain, is also part of the grievance handling process. I have a case in progress now, where I may need to engage one of our PMCs (completely unrelated to OpenHW Group, this is just an example) to help resolve a dispute between two committers on a project. In this particular case, I'm going to need the PMC's insight to help me make a technical assessment of some of the claims. Since the PMC is closer to the technology than I am, I need to leverage their expertise.

In addition to all of this, responsibility falls on the PMC Lead to make sure that the PMC runs smoothly.

Based on all of what I've stated above, my limited understanding of the OpenHW Group project space, and my recollection of our discussions when we built this top level project in the first place, I believe that Mike is the exactly the right person to be the PMC Lead.

My  immediate concern is that we have two contribution questionnaires (project content CQs) waiting for PMC approval. These are stalled in our workflow until we get PMC approval. So... if you, Mike, believe that these contributions align with the scope of the OpenHW Group CORE-V Cores open source project, please open each of the CQs, set the PMC_Approval flag to +1 and click "Issues addressed, return CQ to IPTeam".

Wayne


On Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 17:02 , <duncan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

Hi Wayne,

 

I believe this committee concerns project management and the Eclipse process, as well as maintaining the charter.

It probably makes sense that myself, Rick and Mike are on this committee presumably as Leads.

Potentially also some of the technical chairs/committers if they are interested.

 

Wayne, how do you recommend that we proceed to update the set of PMC Leads and/or members?

Look like we need to recommend a new set of Leads to the Eclipse Board of Directors?

 

Thanks for your guidance

Duncan

 

 

My highlighting below:

4.6.1 Project Management Committee (PMC)

Top-Level Projects are managed by a Project Management Committee (PMC). A PMC has one or more PMC leads and zero or more PMC Members. Together the PMC provides oversight and overall leadership for the Projects that fall under their Top-Level Project. The PMC as a whole, and the PMC leads in particular, are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the Eclipse Development Process is understood and followed by their Projects. The PMC is additionally responsible for maintaining the Top-Level Project’s charter.

PMC leads are approved by the Board of Directors; PMC members are elected by the existing PMC leads and members, and approved by the EMO(ED).

In the unlikely event that a member of the PMC becomes disruptive to the process or ceases to contribute for an extended period, the member may be removed by the unanimous vote of the remaining PMC members, subject to approval by the EMO. Removal of a PMC Lead requires approval of the Board

 

 

From: Mike Thompson <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: August 31, 2020 1:06 PM
To: Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: openhw-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx; Duncan Bees <duncan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rick O'Connor <rickoco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PMC role in the Eclipse intellectual property due diligence process

 

Hi Wayne, thanks for the clarification.   My role as OpenHW Group PMC lead is probably an artifact of early boot-strapping stage of the organization.  Now that we are a biggest organization with more individuals in specialized roles, I am not sure I am the right person for the job.  I can and am willing to do it, but that is different than I should do it.  To wit:

 

I understand that our processes are many and new,

Not to worry Wayne.  We are slow to learn, but we'll get there.  I believe the processes are (mostly) a good thing.  If I may offer some feedback, the tools are not intuitive and this creates a barrier to adoption.

 

[the] question that we need you to answer is whether or not these contributions make sense in the scope of the OpenHW Group CORE-V Cores project.

My role focuses on the Verification "sub-projects" within the CORE-V Cores project.  While I will be looked to for an opinion about other sub-projects, I cannot be the decider.  Having said that, I do not think OpenHW has identified a person or group of people who do own this for all CORE-V projects.

 

Let me sync up with Rick and Duncan and we can determine the best way to proceed.

 

Cheers,

      ---mike

 

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:46 PM Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You are the OpenHW Group PMC Lead and sole member at this point. I hadn't checked this before now, so--while it wasn't my intention to single you out--yes, this message is apparently directed to you. Note that it is common practice for the EMO to transparently address the PMC via their public mailing list (independent of make up).

 

ID 22416 and ID22444 relate to the CVA6 and CV32E40P repositories respectively.   I am not the person to approve the content of either of these repositoires.

 

These are repositories that are being contributed to an Eclipse open source project that is operating under the purview of the OpenHW Group PMC. As a (the) PMC member, you are the person that we need to approve the contribution on behalf of the PMC. I understand that our processes are many and new, which is why I spent the effort to provide some guidance regarding what your approval means in the context of the intellectual property due diligence process.

 

For these contributions, I believe that question that we need you to answer is whether or not these contributions make sense in the scope of the OpenHW Group CORE-V Cores project. That is, does the content that they represent fit within the scope of the project that they are being contributed to? If the answer is yes, then approve the CQs on behalf of the PMC.

 

I can provide additional guidance if necessary.

 

Wayne

 

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:06 PM Mike Thompson <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Wayne, thanks for bcc'ing me.  I am not certain I am subscribed to the openhw-pmc list, so I just now submitted a request to be added to the list, just in case.

 

It is not clear to me that I am the OpenHW Group PMC, or if this email is addressed directly to me.  To be honest, the Eclipse flow is murky and the UI for the tools are difficult to use.   Specifically to your comment:

 

So... in more practical terms, we need the PMC to approve the following CQs:

 

 

To approve, please review the CQs in consideration of the background that I've provided above and set the "PMC_Approved" flag to "+1" and click "Issues addressed, return CQ to IPTeam".

 

ID 22416 and ID22444 relate to the CVA6 and CV32E40P repositories respectively.   I am not the person to approve the content of either of these repositoires.

 

Cheers,

      ---mike

 

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:00 AM Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Greetings OpenHWGroup PMC

 

/bcc Mike Thompson (I'm pretty sure that you've subscribed to this list, but just in case).

/bcc Duncan Bees (you should probably subscribe as well)

 

One of the key responsibilities of the PMC is to ensure that projects are following the Eclipse Intellectual Property Process. In that regard, the PMC has a role in the intellectual property vetting process. Specifically, we need the PMC to approve contribution questionnaires (CQ).

 

The criteria by which a PMC grants approval of a CQ varies by PMC. 

 

At least in part, PMC approval is required to ensure that the PMC is actively engaged with the project that operate under their purview in the event that the EMO requires some assistance working with the project (the PMC member that approves a CQ becomes an obvious contact should the IP Team require your assistance). 

 

In part, PMC approval of CQ means that the PMC believes that the contribution represented by the CQ makes technical sense, but from an intellectual property perspective (i.e. does it make sense to incorporate this contribution into the project?). 

 

Finally, we depend on the PMC to use their knowledge and experience with their community and technology to flag any potential issues that may not be obvious to our intellectual property due diligence team (e.g. you know that the license for some content was changed). 

 

Some PMCs make additional requirements; we can discuss what those additional requirements might be, but I recommend that you defer considering that until a need is demonstrated.


So... in more practical terms, we need the PMC to approve the following CQs:

 

 

To approve, please review the CQs in consideration of the background that I've provided above and set the "PMC_Approved" flag to "+1" and click "Issues addressed, return CQ to IPTeam".

 

 

The IPZilla system should send future notifications of changes to CQ to this openhw-pmc list.

 

Thanks,

 

Wayne

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22


 

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22

Attachment: image001.png
Description: PNG image

Back to the top