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

Although I agree with Ed about his process observations, I want to comment that I thought this discussion started out with the Board desire to *improve* the quality of the release train for an integrated end-user experience.   I didn't think this was intended to become a referendum on the release train projects individually (as I believe the dev process/reviews, etc are designed to provide such guarantees...as John points out), but rather how we were all going to get to the jointly-desired result:  a high quality end-user experience for the release train.

Scott

Ed Merks wrote:
Mike,

I didn't suggest giving up.   But I am suggesting that I will not
personally be on a quality police force.  I would be much happier with a
growing release train of ever improving quality.  If we want to start
kicking off the train cars we thing are crap, I believe this process will
break down, especially considering that folks downstream from crappy cars
will drop of by transitivity...

I'm also not sure that 50 small projects are any different form 25 projects
of 1/2 the size, so I think this focus on the number of projects is
misguided.  All that matters is quality not quantity and there are lots of
things we could do to improve the quality.  And it's not just the code we
ship that affects perceptions.  For example, some projects might consider
paying more attention to their newsgroups...


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 313)




                                                                           
             "Mike                                                         
             Milinkovich"                                                  
             <mike.milinkovich                                          To 
             @eclipse.org>             "'eclipse.org-planning-council'"    
             Sent by:                  <eclipse.org-planning-council@eclip 
             eclipse.org-plann         se.org>                             
             ing-council-bounc                                          cc 
             es@xxxxxxxxxxx                                                
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council]  
             11/01/2007 04:24          A suggested topic for               
             PM                        PlanningCouncil  Discussion         
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
             mike.milinkovich@                                             
               eclipse.org;                                                
             Please respond to                                             
             "eclipse.org-plan                                             
               ning-council"                                               
             <eclipse.org-plan                                             
             ning-council@ecli                                             
                 pse.org>                                                  
                                                                           
                                                                           




I do not buy the argument that since you cannot measure quality objectively
you should just give up. And yes, some mature projects could fall below
this
hypothetical bar.

But as far as I'm concerned shipping a smaller, higher quality release
train
would be just dandy.


  
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Merks [mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:06 PM
To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; eclipse.org-planning-council
Cc: 'eclipse.org-planning-council'; eclipse.org-planning-council-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for
PlanningCouncil Discussion

Mike,

We don't have a bar for measuring quality objectively so that makes
setting
a bar for that extremely difficult.  How could we measure this and
wouldn't
some mature projects fall below this bar?

I also don't think it's reasonable to assume that incubating things
have
low quality nor to assume they have CQs that we must cut back on;
mature
projects seem to generate an awful lot of CQs all on their own.

I very much share your sense of concern about quality but I see no
solution
for policing it.  Peer pressure is the only viable solution I've heard
so
far.   Given resource from the foundation itself, e.g.,for testing or
usability analysis, I'm sure a lot more could be accomplished, but if
that
resource is already streched just by the IP load, that doesn't seem a
viable alternative either.  I think we're all ears for solutions...


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 313)





             "Mike
             Milinkovich"
             <mike.milinkovich
To
             @eclipse.org>             "'eclipse.org-planning-council'"
             Sent by:                  <eclipse.org-planning-
council@eclip
             eclipse.org-plann         se.org>
             ing-council-bounc
cc
             es@xxxxxxxxxxx

Subject
                                       RE: [eclipse.org-planning-
council]
             11/01/2007 03:55          A suggested topic for
             PM                        PlanningCouncil Discussion


             Please respond to
             mike.milinkovich@
               eclipse.org;
             Please respond to
             "eclipse.org-plan
               ning-council"
             <eclipse.org-plan
             ning-council@ecli
                 pse.org>






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

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


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


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