|
As a PMC lead, I am of course totally biased as well.
Like Gunnar, I too look forward to improvements in the IP
workflow. The flood of CQs asking for yet another new version of
some library used to be particularly annoying, but the IP team has
been making steady improvements.
I would caution folks to think carefully about what you ask for
because if your PMC is a bottleneck now, imagine getting rid of
that annoying bottleneck and replacing it with the EMO, likely a
single person, e.g., Wayne, who would then become a single point
of entry. Doesn't that sound like replacing many small
bottlenecks for many bottles with another bottleneck of exactly
the same size and capacity yet serving a much larger single
bottle? It's hard to imagine that working better...
So I think most of this boils down to rules and processes and how
best to make both of them realistic, effective, and minimal.
Delegating as much responsibility as possible for as many things
as possible to the EMO does not sound like a good scalable
strategy for achieving that goal.
Regards,
Ed
On 11.10.2019 03:31, Wayne Beaton
wrote:
This is not going to happen. The notion of a PMC is
baked into the Bylaws and most of our policies.
With the IP Policy changes, we're basically removing the
PMC from the CQ approval game so that they can focus their
energies on more interesting matters.
With the IP Policy changes, projects will not have to wait
for CQs to be approved before content can be leveraged. We'll
have to resolve all content before a release, but during a
development cycle, a project team can just grab and use
anything so long as they have reasonable comfort that the
content is license compatible with the project license. With
the changes, engagement with the IP team to resolve issues
with content will need to be resolved before a release, they
are not immediate blockers. i.e., PMC engagement will not be a
blocker.
The EMO depends on the various PMCs to understand their
project landscape. The EMO does monitor the activeness of
projects, and will reap stale projects, but we depend on the
PMC--as an important part of the project leadership chain--to
have a deeper understanding of the projects under their
purview and take an active role in the health and welfare.
Ultimately, PMCs are responsible for ensuring that the
projects in their purview are following the various rules.
Some PMCs are more engaged than others.
Wayne
I think a PMC perhaps makes sense for groups of
like-minded projects that have some collaborative elements
involved, or for individual projects that are quite large
in scope with a broad base of developers working across
multiple organizations, etc.
Runtime used to meet and talk about trying to put
together some sort of collaborative project that
highlighted the different projects but it has been ages
since there was a meeting I was even aware of.
If there is value in having PMCs anymore I think it
probably needs better defined now that Eclipse has _so_
many more projects onboard and based on that definition a
number of projects should probably be shuffled around
someplace more meaningful to them. The EDP has undergone
a lot of changes over the last several years and perhaps
that is what leaves the PMC concept rather stale.
I think, a PMC is more than just approving CQs.
One key element is monitoring projects and
retiring inactive projects. How is that supposed
to work in a PMC-less project? That work cannot be
dumped on EMO and/or Webmaster.
Why couldn't EMO take care of this work? They
have access to all datas about project releases,
contributions, activities... I don't get what PMC
adds in the process of retiring active project.
All that work could even be automated.
There are also important aspects about
reviewing and approving committer nominations,
project lead elections and not to mention
resolving disputes.
I have the impression it could also be something
that EMO can relatively easily do.
FWIW, I also recommend raising specific
issues with the PMC, though. Especially when
the PMC is a bottleneck this should be raised
ASAP. Sometimes I miss an email from IPzilla
in my inbox. A reminder usually helps. I
appreciate your feedback, though.
Even is PMC is very reactive, it's usually taking
several hours to get an approval on a CQ or on a
release when this could be almost immediate. It's
totally fine that people take some time to notice
mails and answer them, I don't blame people for that.
But why waiting if the project feels the PMC adds no
value to its development?
Despite your attempt to change my mind, I'm still
unsure of the benefits a PMC brings to some projects.
I see value for *some* PMC (Eclipse SDK, JakartaEE
maybe) who want to have a set of sub-projects with
strong consistency of practices, schedules and so on
which makes monitoring profitable; but for many other
projects, things would be easier without a PMC.
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by
processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be
permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request
removal.
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes
internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed
from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request
removal.
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
![]()
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
|
