Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] 2/2 Meeting minutes posted

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.



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.

Good discussions, good progress ... good reminder of how much there's left to do :)

Thank you,
_______________________________________________ mailing list 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.

Back to the top