|Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] IPZilla rant|
I think you're speaking truth here, brother. While I think there is room for improvement in the EDP and the IP policy (and I realize we don't have any sway over the latter...), I feel like there are substantially large gains to be had in improved tooling around working through CQs and other tasks.
Jay Jay Billings
Team Lead, Scientific Software Development
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Twitter Handle: @jayjaybillings
From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 11:02 AM
Subject: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] IPZilla rant
For the 1st time, I've been in the shoes of someone willing to contribute a new project to Eclipse Foundation and who had to face the challenge of opening multiple CQs.
I think that more than the process, the tool is really irritating at that scale. I've opened https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=538424 to track my rants.
I'm sending this to AC because it's where we usually discuss how the process can be made simpler and more welcoming.
My feeling on this is that often, the process is simple enough, but the tools to process it require hard work from contributors. Basically, repetitive and error-prone tasks; or tasks that requires advanced knowledge about the EDP while tool fails at (re)explaining or linking to the right part of EDP at this point.
I think a UX audit of the PMI (mostly to be more be more "educative" about why and what is a release and what are the possible variations and how to profit from them) and IPZilla (to reduce the cost of contributing new projects relying on a lot of other libraries) would have a better ROI than trying to deeply renovate the EDP.
Back to the top