Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | "Patent License" field for Specification Projects | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton> | ||||
| Component: | Project Management & Portal | Assignee: | Eric Poirier <eric.poirier> | ||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | chris.guindon, ivar.grimstad, wayne.beaton, webmaster | ||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Wayne Beaton
Hi Wayne, I think this bug fell in the cracks for 2019Q2. Just so I understand your request, if a project is a Specification Project, it will be possible to select one of the two patent license? Is this new field required or would it be optional? Thanks. Created attachment 279388 [details]
Screenshot
Hi Wayne,
Attached you will find how I implemented the Patent License field in the Governance page. Please let me know if you'd like to make any changes.
Also, should we display any information about the Spec project information to give context about why this project is using a patent license?
Thanks.
I created the following patch to create the field and make it appear/disappear depending if the Spec project field has a value or not. So far this patch is not ready to be reviewed since I'm still waiting for Wayne's input about the screenshot i uploaded in comment #2. https://foundation.eclipse.org/r/c/drupal/custom/pmi/+/3470 > Attached you will find how I implemented the Patent License field in the > Governance page. Please let me know if you'd like to make any changes. LGTM. +1 > Also, should we display any information about the Spec project information > to give context about why this project is using a patent license? I'm thinking that the link to the IP Policy is good enough. Regarding editing... I'm thinking that this field is something that only the EMO can edit on a project content type node. The project team should be able to specify this while creating their specification project proposal (i.e. we need this field in the proposal content type alongside the specification project field). It doesn't make sense to specify a value in this field if the proposal is not for a specification project. I'm thinking that this should manifest as decent descriptive text for the field and a warning rather than any clever UI to hide/show the field. It would be good to have warnings on the proposal and a blocker on project creation if either a proposal is described as being for a specification project and the patent license field is not set, or the patent license field is set and the specification project field is not. This all makes sense in my head. I can take another run at explaining it if I've done a poor job here. (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #4) > > Attached you will find how I implemented the Patent License field in the > > Governance page. Please let me know if you'd like to make any changes. > > LGTM. +1 > > > Also, should we display any information about the Spec project information > > to give context about why this project is using a patent license? > > I'm thinking that the link to the IP Policy is good enough. +1 > > Regarding editing... I'm thinking that this field is something that only the > EMO can edit on a project content type node. On the project node, the field could be disabled but visible to the users with a note saying something like if they need to change the patent license, they need to contact EMO. > The project team should be able to specify this while creating their > specification project proposal (i.e. we need this field in the proposal > content type alongside the specification project field). Ok I was under the impression that the field was only in the projects content type. I will make the necessary changes to add the new field in the project proposal content type as well and when the project gets created, the value of the field gets transferred to the project node. > > It doesn't make sense to specify a value in this field if the proposal is > not for a specification project. I'm thinking that this should manifest as > decent descriptive text for the field and a warning rather than any clever > UI to hide/show the field. > > It would be good to have warnings on the proposal and a blocker on project > creation if either a proposal is described as being for a specification > project and the patent license field is not set, or the patent license field > is set and the specification project field is not. > > This all makes sense in my head. I can take another run at explaining it if > I've done a poor job here. I think it does make sense, I'll make the necessary changes, update my patch and upload a new screenshot. Once we have something close to be finished, I will update the staging website to test the flow of the project creation. > On the project node, the field could be disabled but visible to the users
> with a note saying something like if they need to change the patent license,
> they need to contact EMO.
+1 (but only for specification projects; please let's just hide the field when the project is not a specification project).
Hi Wayne, This is now live on production. The Patent License field is now available in the Project Proposal content type if its a spec project. The same field is also visible but only editable by EMO. Please reopen this bug if there's an issue with this update. Thanks. Hi Wayne, Ivar is trying to make changes to the following Project: https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jakartaee-platform As it's a Spec project, the Patent License field is required but disabled for all users except for EMO. There is currently no value set for this field which doesn't pass validation when trying to make any changes to the project. Is this the behaviour that we expect? Or should users be able to still edit their project even if there are no values in the patent license field? Thanks. Re-opening this issue. I think we need to a solution to Ivar's problem. The solution is to set the value. I've gone through all of the specification projects and have set the value for all of them. I thought that I'd done this, but clearly manufactured that memory. This is a point-in-time problem. We have (had) a bunch of misconfigured specification projects because this field was added after we created them. This may pop up again, but likely shouldn't. (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #10) > The solution is to set the value. I've gone through all of the specification > projects and have set the value for all of them. I thought that I'd done > this, but clearly manufactured that memory. > > This is a point-in-time problem. We have (had) a bunch of misconfigured > specification projects because this field was added after we created them. > This may pop up again, but likely shouldn't. Ok thanks for making the updates Wayne. |