[technology-pmc] Re: [Fwd: Re: EPF reviews]
please see repsonse below after PKR:.
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software, IBM Corp
Technology PMC members,
|Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
09/18/2006 01:47 PM
|[Fwd: Re: EPF reviews]|
Per has sent the attached draft slides for the potential EPF 1.0 Release.
We should all review them before giving our approval for EPF to go
ahead with a 1.0 graduation release - we want to avoid a repeat of the
Some specific comments:
OpenUP has the following content leads that drive development in each area:
- All slides: the footer is incorrect because the Eclipse
Foundation is not publishing this material
- Slides 2 and 19: according to the commits
explorer, there are a maximum of 6 companies
(IBM, Telelogic, and four individuals assuming the individuals work for
four different companies) instead of the 11 claimed in the slides with
17 committers instead of the 27 listed in the slides. And IBM employees
are doing 94% of the commits. This doesn't strike me as a particularly
diverse committer community.
a) 100% of committs for tool component is by IBMers, which was expected.
However, there are some indications that this could change and LogicaCMD
has a complete working Wiki extension to EPF they want to contribute. We
need to resolve some issues such as usage of commercial components. See
13% of committs for content component are from non-IBMers. Over the last
4 months, that figure has been 22%. If you count percentage of people doing
committs on the Content component, 50% are non-IBMers. As discussed below,
the actual contributions from non-IBMers are much greater than these figures
indicate. Also, it was discussed during the Acceptance Review that we should
expect to see other companies to primarily be interested in the content
component, not the tool component.
b) The companies that have done committs are: IBM, Telelogic, Xansa (Mark),
University British Columbia (Steve), Ambysoft (Scott), and Number Six.
c) These figures do not fairly reflect actual contributions. Typically
a guideline is written up, or content is discussed, and many people are
involved in shaping the content. Then one person (often an IBMer) does
the actual committ. One reason for this is that you cannot mark edits with
change bar within the tool, so it is more practical to have a discussion
in bugzilla / epf-dev using Word, and then take the end result and committ.
As an example, Chris Armstrong, Armstrong consulting, has commented on
95 bugs, but has made zero committs. <I have a separate issues to deal
with that some valuable team members should committ their work and not
work through others, but it does not mean that they do not add value or
are not involved>
d) Of the last 200 epf-dev mails, 45% was sent by non-IBMers
=> Requirements - Chris Sibbald, Telelogic
=> Project Management - Chris Armstrong, Armstrong Process Group
=> Architecture - Mark Cickson, Xansa
=> Development & test - Brian Lyons, NumberSix
=> General (anything else) - Steve , University British Columbia
These are the people that drive the discussions and meetings in each content
area. We then have 4-5 IBMers core to the content component. There you
got the current kernel of 10 committers for the content team...
however, I am concerned that the committer community is not diverse because
over 90% of the work is still being done by IBM.
- Slide 19: who are the non-committer contributors?
PKR: Please see project/IP log, http://www.eclipse.org/epf/project-info/project_log.csv
- Slide 20: "Several major organizations..." and
"Many organizations..." - I'd like to see a concrete list.
PKR: I could rapidly find 13 companies that add value to EPF. I think
this is just the tip of an iceberg... Every time I go to a conference,
a new company tells me that they are using EPF one way or the other...Also
note that that I do not have all companies listed that are supporters of
- Slides 9-11: the outreach to the user community appears
to be above average for Eclipse projects
Can you answer the three issues (diversity, non-committer contributors,
concrete lists) raised above? Thanks.
EPF 1.0 Review v0.8.ppt
Description: Binary data
EPF Value Add.doc
Description: Binary data