Another option is to change the Technology PMC charter.
It's been needing an update for a few years anyway. This might be a
good opportunity.
Wayne
On 11/08/2011 01:20 PM, Eric Rizzo wrote:
I'm not an EPP committer or package maintainer, just an interested
party and member of the Technology PMC. I think this idea has a
lot of merit, but one thing that stands out to me is that the
policy would be in direct contradiction with the Technology
Project's policy on committer election (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Technology#Committer_Elections)
One solution top that dilemma would be to move EPP out from under
the Technology umbrella; one could even make a case that it
doesn't really belong there anymore, as part of the original
Technology Project charter was that the sub-projects had a finite
lifespan, but EPP is an ongoing effort. Unfortunately, I don't
know under what other top-level project EPP would fit; the only
ones that I can think of as even potential candidates would be
Eclipse Project or Tools Project. But I'm not really sure about
either of those.
Sorry I don't have any more concrete ideas than that; I'm copying
the Technology PMC on this message in the hopes that some of my
committee-mates will have some input.
Eric
On 11/8/11 12:26 PM, David M Williams wrote:
Last year, all of us package maintainers became committers
on EPP, by virtue of the fact we were package maintainers.
While there is not a lot of development, per se, in EPP, nor
committing required, I know some of us have added/removed a
few things to our packages based on this committership.
So, now, as time has passed, the question comes to mind
about a) how to "transfer" package maintainer responsibility
to someone else, and b) how to elect new committers to EPP.
Seems we should have an established "project policy". How
about if we combine the two?
Markus and I have discussed a little, and we thought it time
to raise this on epp-dev list, to see if any other
committers had opinions or points of view that differed from
ours. We were thinking that our policy in EPP be similar to
how committership in Orbit is handled. In Orbit, if someone
is a committer on another Eclipse project, and they state
they are interested in contributing some packages to Orbit,
that suffices for them to be nominated and voted-in as a
committer and maintain what ever packages their project
needs. This differs from most other projects where, for good
reason, a person must have a history of contributions to
that specific project, not just Eclipse in general. The
Orbit model seems to fit EPP too, if some agrees to maintain
a package (either a new package, or transfer "ownership"),
and they are a committer in another Eclipse project, it
seems reasonable they would not have to have any direct EPP
contribution history. I guess the reasons to vote "no" (-1)
would be something like "no, I am the current maintainer and
I do not agree to this! :) ... or some other fairly large
issue. Normally people do not vote "0" in Orbit, but but
vote "+1" if basic criteria are met, to be welcoming and
supportive of new people coming in. Normally, we'd propose,
unless a committer explicitly "resigns" there would be no
automatic removal of a committer just because package
responsibility is transferred, except eventually the usual
"inactive" reasons would apply ... if someone is no longer
responsible for maintaining a package and has not been
active on mailing lists, etc., for a period of 6 months or
so, the Project Lead can remove them via Eclipse Portal for
"inactivity". And, of course, committers should explicitly
resign, if appropriate, such as they are changing
responsibilities and know they have no interest or time to
be involved. (In Orbit, someone may contribute a bundle, and
then do nothing else for years, but they stay a committer
... but every now and then, I have removed people from the
Orbit committer list, if they are no longer are listed as
the contact for maintaining a bundle, and, obviously, do not
otherwise participate in Orbit discussions, etc.)
Does anyone object to us using the "Orbit model" of
committership? Any other suggestions on how to transfer
package "ownership"? If there are no objections and no
alternatives are forthcoming, I'll write up this policy on
our EPP Wiki in about a week and ask Markus to also discuss
with (or send note to) Technology PMC, to make sure they
would not find controversy with this policy (or, what ever
policy we end up with, from this discussion).
So, EPP Committers, let us know, here on epp-dev, what you
think of this proposed policy ... especially if you think
further discussion of alternatives is needed.
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
|
