I would like to ask a question of the planning council and perhaps
start a public discussion.
I'm the project lead of a mature project (ECF) that has been a
member of the simultaneous release for the past 4 years. David and
others familiar with our previous contributions to the simultaneous
release.
Over these four years, ECF has not had any representation on the
planning council...and never been consulted or even asked about any
decisions associated with the simultaneous release (e.g. for
whether/what *our* community is wanting in terms of the simultaneous
release).
Over the past year, I've been made aware of several other projects
that have previously participated in the simultaneous release, but
are reaching (or have reached) the limit on their releng
resources...and some are contemplating not participating in
Indigo...because of the releng load, because of the increases in
required 'todo' items, and perhaps some of these projects perceive a
mismatch between what the simultaneous release is now requiring and
what their community is telling them they want. See [1] for a
discussion on the ECF mailing list about simultaneous release
participation, etc).
My question is this: I don't see any indication in the planning
council notes for yesterday's meeting of *anyone* bringing up the
issue of projects (like ECF) questioning the utility for their
consumers of participation in Indigo (given the costs for the
projects/committers...which seem to continue to go up inexorably).
Can this issue get raised on the planning council? I know for sure
that I'm not the only project lead that is questioning whether the
benefits of participating in the simultaneous release (for the
consumers/community) offset the rising costs on the projects (mostly
releng...but also IP process of course). Although others may
disagree, I think this is not a good sign.
IMHO there is both a material problem and a process problem: The
material problem is that smaller/non-strategic run projects are
generally starved for releng resources, and this is getting worse
given the increasing requirements for SR participation, as well as
reduced resources for open source projects in general. The process
problem (IMHO) is the (lack of) representation of the
smaller/non-strategic run projects on the planning council.
Note I'm not blaming anyone for anything...for example I have the
highest appreciation for David Williams (in particular), the
simultaneous release builder/Buckminster team, and others that have
been doing the actual work of the simultaneous release on behalf of
all the projects. Bravo!
But I think it would be worthwhile to have a discussion about what I
perceive to be both the material problem and the process problem
here...before we get to April/May and projects start dropping out of
the SR.
Scott
[1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg04670.html
On 2/2/2011 10:56 AM, David M Williams wrote:
I've typed in what I
captured during the
meeting, but please review and correct anything I missed. I know
for sure
I missed some "attendees", so feel free to correct that table
if you were there.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/February_02_2011
Good discussions, good progress
...
good reminder of how much there's left to do :)
Thank you,
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-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.
|