On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM Wayne Beaton <[email protected]> wrote:
> The PMC may push back on a CQ if the license is obviously a no-go. > However, the PMC is not expected to have expertise in licensing matters and > if there is any doubt, should just punt to the IP Team. > If there is an obvious license no-go, then perhaps the CQ filing screen could alert the submitter that they shouldn't bother if the license is XYZ? > That is, of course, assuming that a CQ has technical merit. > I'm confused on this... should the PMC be inquiring as to why a project depends on something (technically for what purpose)? I trust project committers, particularly with peer review, to not add dependencies that are of no purpose. Furthermore there is a hurdle to adding dependencies with the CQ process so adding a dependency will be avoided if the dependency won't add value. Also, I will try and encourage a project to use a more recent version of a > library when a more recent version has already been approved by the IP Team. > The CQ filing process already brings to one's attention other CQs for other versions. (I think you were involved in that feature; thank you). Is that not enough? Perhaps the filing screen could further explicitly encourage the submitter to simply use a pre-approved version if it's compatible. As a separate matter; it'd be nice if it was easier to get approval for a new version of something. I'd hope for that to be a fast-tracked thing assuming no license changed. ~ David -- Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
_______________________________________________ incubation mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
