[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Plann ingCouncil Discussion

Yikes! 30!

 

I guess the problem is that with Europa, we pretty much let anyone in (no disrespect intended to those projects that got added). The train does not scale even to 22 let alone adding any more. I think I’ve referred recently to the over populated update site that is Europa.

 

I think we’ve started something with the EPP packages. I’m seeing these get reviewed in the blogosphere, instead of the individual projects. It may be interesting to focus on them as official Eclipse “products” and have the bar set sufficiently high on them to make them truly product quality. If you’re not in a package, you’re not on the train. Of course that would require us to have product management around these packages to make sure the best components are selected for the market, and to work the requirements with the projects. Just a thought…

 

Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com


From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:56 PM
To: 'eclipse.org-planning-council'
Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for PlanningCouncil Discussion

 

Doug, Doug, Ed, et al,

 

What you are suggesting is an even lower bar than what we have had in the past. At least on paper, if not in practice.

 

The problem with this approach is it means that the release trains just get bigger and bigger and with no incremental improvement in the overall quality of what’s coming from Eclipse. Shipping a big bag of stuff that doesn’t work together is not going to help us build a reputation for quality. It will destroy it. And once you have destroyed a reputation for quality, it can take a generation (e.g. ~20 years) to get it back, if ever.

 

As a purely practical matter, I honestly doubt that the Eclipse Foundation as the IP resources to review and approve all the CQs to ship 30 projects on the same day. So if you guys don’t come up with some rules that raise the bar and limit who has the process maturity and quality to get in, don’t get mad at me for making rude and arbitrary decisions J

 

I completely understand that what you’re recommending is the simplest and easiest approach. But IMHO (a) it’s the wrong thing to do for the Eclipse community and (b) it is unlikely to work in practice.

 

Mike Milinkovich

Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228

Mobile: +1.613.220.3223

mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx

 

From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:32 PM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for PlanningCouncil Discussion

 

All,

 

As far as I’m concerned, the only reason to kick a project off the train is if they consistently fail to build and update their site at each milestone.  Simply put, the ejection is because “Project X keeps holding up the release.”  Furthermore, I think it should come to a vote by all of the projects on the train to kick a single project off.

 

Everything else should be a strongly encouraged optional requirement, and we should use public humiliation to police those requirements, e.g. “I noticed that Project Y is not optimizing their jars, shame on you.  Please fix it.”  Clearly there are technical must do’s that physically put a project on the train, and they should be stated as such. 

 

Bottom line, I think we should err on the side of inclusion, and leave it up the projects to prove that they can or can’t keep up with the milestone schedule.  If they can’t keep up, then their processes aren’t mature enough.

 

Doug G

 

From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 5:17 PM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for PlanningCouncil Discussion

 

Hi Bjorn,

Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:

Doug, (and everyone)
I agree - if there are no people or people hours, there will be no code, no matter how much the Board wishes for it to happen. One could argue (I have argued) that the Board controls the people hours, so if they want to define a requirement, they should supply the resources, but somehow that logical situation doesn't always come true.

Do you really think it would poison the community if there were a two-level train?



I think it would poison the community to have a two-level train.  I think we would quickly see different requirements and EMO treatment (and member company support) for the 'corporate-run' projects relative to all the other projects...those led by smaller companies and/or independents.  Seems to me this would eventually lead to inequities that many committers would consider unacceptable for a merit-and-value-based community.

A "meet all the requirements" level (the gold medal) and a "simultaneously release" level (the silver medal)? Maybe if the packages and the main update site contained the gold seal projects, but that the silver projects were also (if there was time to review the IP) available at the same time?


It seems to me like this sort of classification would be inherently detrimental to 'silver medal' projects and differential to 'gold medal' projects.  That is, it may say nothing about their usefulness, and/or value to be labeled as 'silver', but just the labeling by the membership and foundation will lead to end-user biases...with lower adoption, tougher distribution, etc., etc.

It does seem to me that if the Board wants to mandate that the projects have to do more/other in terms of integration/testing, etc for the release train...and that the EMO should/must police/enforce the new rules...that there should be some recognition that this implies some support from the membership to do the work involved.  There are many ways that I can think of to do this (contributing integration testing resources, allowing existing committers to work on related projects, etc., etc).    Unfunded mandates don't really work IMHO...either for the committer community or for the EMO.

Scott



- Bjorn

Doug Schaefer wrote:

As for requirements, other than holding up the IP process I’m not sure what stick the EMO has to enforce projects meet the requirements. If projects don’t have the resources or the mandate from the employers of the resources to do the work, it doesn’t happen. And if you kick projects off the train because of that, that could poison the community. The best stick still is influencing and that involves good communication channels open between the requirers and requirees, and, of course, a reasonable set of requirements.

--

[end of message]

 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council