We have discussed this at numerous OMC meetings in terms of how to managed
potential *perceived *conflicts of interest that might arise if people
outside of the fellows come from the same company and hence can effectively
turn the OMC review control mechanism into a single control rather than a
dua
There hasn't been a vote about this, however both Shane and I have committed to
not approve each other's PRs.
I also asked Richard if this could be mechanically enforced, which I expect
will happen eventually.
Pauli
--
Oracle
Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption
Phone
> No such decision has been made as far as I know although it has been discussed
> at various times.
>
> > Should this policy be extended to OpenSSL’s fellows?
>
> IMO, no.
I agree with Matt: While this policy makes sense for employers of third party
companies,
because these companies might hav
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:45:48PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> IMO, no.
I also don't see a need for this at present, and it is not clear
that there are enough active part-time reviewers in place to keep
up with commits from the fellows in a timely manner.
--
Viktor.
On Thu, 23 May 2019 19:26:59 +0200,
Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> On 23/05/2019 18:25, Matt Caswell wrote:
> > Please see the following blog post by Matthias about the recent committers
> > day:
> >
> > https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2019/05/23/f2f-committers-day/
>
> I should point out BTW that e
On Thu, 23 May 2019 17:42:46 +0200,
Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> On 23/05/2019 16:31, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > > In private email, and
> > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8886#issuecomment-494624313 the
> > implication is that this was a policy.
> >
> > AFAIK this is not the case.
>
On 23/05/2019 18:25, Matt Caswell wrote:
> Please see the following blog post by Matthias about the recent committers
> day:
>
> https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2019/05/23/f2f-committers-day/
I should point out BTW that eating vegemite is not a requirement for becoming a
committer. :-)
Mat
Please see the following blog post by Matthias about the recent committers day:
https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2019/05/23/f2f-committers-day/
Matt
On 23/05/2019 18:14, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 17:17 +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:25:07 +0200,
>> Salz, Rich wrote:
>>> I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism
>>> (and maybe by policy although
>>> it’s not published yet), two
On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 17:17 +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:25:07 +0200,
> Salz, Rich wrote:
> > I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism
> > (and maybe by policy although
> > it’s not published yet), two members of the same company cannot
> > approv
On 23/05/2019 16:54, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> In that example the potential conflict of interest comes from the
>> individual's
> employment with the third party organisation, not because they are fellows.
>
> Do you disagree with my contention that the OMC represents the project, and
> not the fel
On 23/05/2019 16:31, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > In private email, and
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8886#issuecomment-494624313 the
> implication is that this was a policy.
>
> AFAIK this is not the case.
>
> Is the comment wrong, either factually or because it is implemen
> In private email, and
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8886#issuecomment-494624313 the
implication is that this was a policy.
AFAIK this is not the case.
Is the comment wrong, either factually or because it is implementing something
that isn't an official policy?
> In
On 23/05/2019 16:01, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism (and
> maybe by
> > policy although it’s not published yet), two members of the same
> company cannot
> > approve the same PR. That’s great. (I never approved Akamai requ
> I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism (and
maybe by
> policy although it’s not published yet), two members of the same company
cannot
> approve the same PR. That’s great. (I never approved Akamai requests
unless it
> was trivial back when I was on
On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:25:07 +0200,
Salz, Rich wrote:
> I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism (and maybe
> by policy although
> it’s not published yet), two members of the same company cannot approve the
> same PR. That’s
> great. (I never approved Akamai requests u
On 23/05/2019 15:25, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism (and maybe
> by
> policy although it’s not published yet), two members of the same company
> cannot
> approve the same PR. That’s great. (I never approved Akamai requests unless
> it
I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism (and maybe
by policy although it’s not published yet), two members of the same company
cannot approve the same PR. That’s great. (I never approved Akamai requests
unless it was trivial back when I was on the OMC.)
Should this
18 matches
Mail list logo
