| Re: [science-pmc] Triquetrum 0.3.0 release preparation : CQs for Ptolemy bundle updates |
Yes, that's how we started out. I think it was a good idea at the time, so that we could get more people involved and learn a bit about how the PMC works.
I think we need to do a reboot and figure out how the Science PMC should work in the future.
Best regards,
Torkild
> 19. aug. 2019 kl. 18:52 skrev Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> My understanding is that all Science project leads are PMC members. Not all top level projects work this way, but I believe that was what we decided.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>> On Aug 19, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Christopher Brooks <cxbrooks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I've probably asked this before, but am I a PMC voting member? I don't recall if I was elected. Details about PMCs are at https://wiki.eclipse.org/PMC
>>
>> If I'm a member, then I could approve these. However, as this is my code, I'm not sure if *should* approve it. Perhaps someone else should approve these?
>>
>>
>>
>> The summary is that these four CQs are to cover support for Apache Karaf ("a modular open source OSGi (Release 6) runtime environment"), memory leaks and support for more recent versions of the JDK, so approval by the PMC should be a snap.
>>
>>
>>
>> Erwin, could you upload the sources so that I can do a more complete analysis of the changes between the previously CQ'd version and the approved version. I've previously done analyses of the changes, but I should take a pass at what is actually being submitted.
>>
>> The differences between the code that previously passed CQ and the new code are fairly small, though there are annoying white space changes because of changes to how Eclipse indents and cleans code.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to see the modules have Type B content, but I'm not sure if we can do it because getting approval of all the authors could be time consuming.
>>
>> https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_IP_Policy.pdf says:
>>
>>
>>> B.In the Case of Content that is requested by one or more projects to be made available as Non-Eclipse Content:
>>
>>> The Project Lead(s) for each Eclipse Project shall document the level of review required for its Non-Eclipse Content as “Type A” or “Type B” as defined below. The EMO, working with the applicable PMC(s), Project Lead(s) and Committer(s), shall document, and where required approve the use of Content as Non-Eclipse Content by contacting the Committer(s) seeking to Submit such Content, and collect, confirm, and maintain a record of the following:
>>>
>>> For “Type A” Projects:(1)It will be the responsibility of the Eclipse Project to run and analyze the results of a scan tool provided by the EMO, using parameters provided by the EMO, to obtain the terms and conditions under which such Content would be distributed by the Eclipse Foundation, and ensure that such terms are consistent with the Project Licenses. The Eclipse Project will certify that the terms and conditions of its Non-EclipseContent conform to thethen-current licensing guidelines as provided by the EMO. No further approvals will be required from the EMO prior to the Eclipse Project placing the Non-Eclipse Content into the Repository.
>>>
>>> For “Type B” Projects:In addition to the steps described abovefor Type A Projects, the EMO will:
>>>
>>> (2)Run and analyze the results of a scan tool provided by the EMO, using parameters provided by the EMO, to help confirm the provenance of the Content.
>>> (3)Confirm the provenance of the Content by asking the redistributors(s),maintainers(s), and/or the original author(s) of the Content questions such as:
>>> i.What is your process to obtain the necessary rights to enable you to redistribute the author(s)’ work?
>>> ii.Did you agree to your code being distributed, under the applicable license agreement(s)?
>>> iii.Did you write the code in question?
>>> iv.Does anyone else have rights to the code in question?
>>>
>>> The above are examples to illustrate the types of questions asked to gain comfort that the Eclipse Foundation can distribute such Content. Committers on Type B Projects may not place Non-Eclipse Content into the Repository without the approval of the EMO.
>> Should we go with Type A?
>>
>> _Christopher
>>
>> On 8/18/19 5:18 PM, erwindl0@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> For the Triquetrum 0.3.0 release, we want to integrate the latest updates in Ptolemy II bundles, needed to prepare for supporting modern JDK versions.
>>> They also contain a limited set of improvements/fixes related to memory management.
>>>
>>> We've had Type A CQs in the past for these bundles, but given that we consider 0.3.0 most probably as the final release before considering retiring Triquetrum, I feel a Type B check is best here.
>>>
>>> CQs are 20675-20678.
>>>
>>> Could the PMC review and approve these CQ submissions so they can go for the IP checks in time for the science release?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> erwin
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> science-pmc mailing list
>>>
>>> science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>>
>>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc
>> _______________________________________________
>> science-pmc mailing list
>> science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> science-pmc mailing list
> science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc
_______________________________________________
science-pmc mailing list
science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc