Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Buildship to join Mars

I really don’t have a dog in this fight. I have no vested interested in whether Gradle is included in the EPP package or not other than how our lack of Gradle support affects the perception of the Eclipse IDE and the health of our community. I don’t know enough to judge those affects. And I am saddened that the work being done to ensure a successful release in Mars, especially by the foundation staff, has gone for not.

I will raise an additional concern about releasing major new functionality in an EPP package in an service release. I think that will really confuse people and have a negative impact on the perception of our processes. We stated that major releases were only to be done in the June release. I would consider the first release of Gradle as a major release and should require an exception to be included there.

Doug.

From: David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Eclipse Planning Council private list <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 1:01 PM
To: Eclipse Planning Council private list <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Buildship to join Mars

The by-laws are not that specific as to how we rule ourselves, but that's the way it's always been, and the way I think it should be. I've not seen any unintended consequences in the ?10 years? I've been involved with the planning council, and think we are all smart enough to rule out frivolous votes, or a veto stated with no reason provided. (After all, we don't let just anyone join :)  But you are welcome to bring up concerns and alternatives at any of our meetings.

But for our "Exception process" we were quite specific that one dissenter is enough:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements/Appendix#Planning_Council_Exception_Process

And in this specific case, I think those that said they disagreed had good reasons (i.e. were not frivolous).





From:        Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
To:        Eclipse Planning Council private list <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        04/15/2015 12:30 PM
Subject:        Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Buildship to join Mars
Sent by:        eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




Really? David, can you point in they bylaws where it states we “rule by consensus”? That’s essentially stating everyone on the council has a veto. Is that what we really want? That has a lot of unintended consequences.

Thanks,
Doug.

From: David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To:
Eclipse Planning Council private list <
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:15 PM
To:
Eclipse Planning Council private list <
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Buildship to join Mars


As Planning Council chair, I wanted to close this request and discussion, by formally stating this exception request is "not approved".

While some on Planning Council were in favor of it, some were not, or wanted to see additional evidence that they fit in well, which would be hard to do. Since we "rule by consensus" (not majority rule) it seems clear from the discussion that, as a group, we are not comfortable with this late addition.


The discussion about alternatives was good to hear, and I think some of those are long term changes in processes that deserve further discussion, but for the short term needs of the Buildship project, I think there were a couple of concrete alternatives that fit in with existing rules and processes, and I hope fit with their needs and processes:


1) They could still release in June, under normal EDP release procedures, and simply release from their own repository, and have their own downloads of what ever form they'd like.


2) In addition, they could "join the train" (be in Sim. Release repository) in September, for SR1, assuming that between July and September they contributed regularly for aggregation builds by contributing their features in a new b3aggrcon file and are responsive to fixing issues that caused, if any (as well as meet all the other criteria for being in the Sim. Release).


In closing, I appreciate everyone's participation in the discussion, and just as important, appreciate your support of new projects at Eclipse, especially one as important as providing Gradle support. I'm sure we all will continue to be supportive of the Buildship project and new projects in general.


Thank you all,








From:        
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:        
04/04/2015 02:15 PM
Subject:        
[eclipse.org-planning-council] Buildship to join Mars
Sent by:        
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




Greetings Planning Council.

As I stated on the call, I believe that Buildship conforms to the EDP and--pending completion of the IP due-diligence process--is ready to do a proper release from Eclipse.

I have some further work to do to confirm that Buildship meets with the simultaneous release participation requirements.

On this Wednesday's call, we had discussed getting some independent Gradle experts to sign-off on the quality of the project. After some reflection, it occurred to me that we do not make this requirement of any other participant and so I consider it unfair to impose this requirement on Buildship. I would like to remove this from any acceptance criteria.

The EMO considers the inclusion of Gradle tools important for this release. I've discussed why we think this is important at length, but am more than happy to provide more background if necessary. The quality of this new Gradle support is very important, so we're going to take the unprecedented step of connecting with Gradle experts from the community to ensure that the contribution is of the necessary quality. But, again, I don't feel that this is a reasonable criterion for acceptance of the project as part of Mars.

As we discussed, there are two levels of acceptance here. First, we need the Planning Council to allow Buildship to join the simultaneous release. Once on board, I will work with the package maintainers to determine if they will include Buildship in their package definitions or not. There is another further decision to make regarding whether or not it is included in the "Eclipse Projects" Market that we discussed for the Eclipse Marketplace.

With this in mind, I respectfully request that the Planning Council set the following as the acceptance criteria for bringing Buildship into the simultaneous release:

* Conformance with the EDP; and
* Conformance with the rules for participation in the Simultaneous release.

I trust that the Planning Council will accept my assertion that these criteria have been met after I've done my review.

If anybody would like to propose additional acceptance criteria, please do so ASAP.

Since time is tight, I will ask that we start the vote immediately using our standard voting rules. Please respond on this thread with +1, 0, or -1 by EOB on Friday, April 10/2015.

Thanks,

Wayne

--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation

EclipseCon
          France 2015_______________________________________________
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
_______________________________________________
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.

[attachment "ATT00001.png" deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Back to the top