dsdp-pmc

[dsdp-pmc] [CQ 2444] antenna.preprocessor Version: 1.2

emo-ip-team@xxxxxxx (emo-ip-team) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:05:35 GMT

http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2444


Sharon Corbett  changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|awaiting_triage             |awaiting_pmc




--- Comment #19 from Sharon Corbett   2008-08-21 16:05:34 ---
Auto-Generated Text:  IPTeam awaiting response from PMC.


-- 
Configure CQmail: http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the CQ.

RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

doug.gaff@xxxxxxx (Gaff, Doug) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:06:14 GMT

+1. I like this wording.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:29 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi Doug,

the CDT is different than the projects we're dealing with here -- it's got
a mature, much-used code base and most contributions are bug fixes.

The projects that we're dealing with here are young and it's very important

for them to get new committers. Therefore, we try to make the roadblocks

for new committers as small as possible; especially in cases where

committers from other projects (with existing Eclipse / IP process

knowledge) get added to the new project.

I agree, though, that we must not risk weakness of the IP due diligence

process as well as the Eclipse principles of Meritocracy, Openness

and Transparency. That's why it's important for me to have the 3

contributions referenced by means of a clickable hyperlink, to make

the review process as sooth and easy as possible. Reviewing

these contributions should then allow at least some judgement
of the contributor.

Requiring the patch to be actually applied is a good idea, since that

highlights the requirement to have gone through the IP due diligence

process at least once. I agree that as the PMC we should encourage

projects to use bugzilla, ipzilla, CVS/SVN and the patch mechanism

a lot, because with using it comes the experience that makes the

process smooth and not a hurdle any more.

What about the following:

Committer Nominations must reference (by clickable hyperlink) at least
3 good quality, publicly visible records of contribution. At least one of these
must be a patch in bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project, which has
been applied into the codebase.

Cheers,

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:25 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

The CDT standard is around 10 patches. They don't have to be big, though, but they do have to have been applied, which I assume (hope) implies quality. And we only have the "community" road. I imaging smaller projects may require a "company" road to build up their numbers, but it does go against the meritocracy theme, and there is no reason why these guys could work with the committers they work with to get their patches through until they earn their rights.

Doug.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:09 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi all,

my experience with other (larger projects) is, that there are basically

two roads to becoming a committer:

The "community" road: a person or company gets interested in some technology, starts using it, finds bugs or wants enhancements and starts contributing. On this road, it is typical to have 5 patches or more in bugzilla before the project team invites the person to becoming a committer. I've seen this in my own project, but also the Platform, Apache Commons, RXTX, JSch.

The "company" road: company X already has some committers on the project and wants to add one more. On this road, requirement for publicly visible contributions is an annoying barrier, but still important in order to give the entire community a chance to vote on the new person.

In both cases, I do not think that there is a strict requirement with respect to the quality of the patches. For one, I've had a contribution which in the end DELETED one line of code only (so the count is -1 LOC) but it was a very valuable bugfix and result of some deep investigations of the code.

But also in the "company" case, what really counts for me is the public visibility, and fostering a process walkthrough and understanding. If company X tries to push in a committer with low-quality one-liners, then the rest of the community (or even the PMC) could still vote -1 on the committer. What we are establishing here is, in my opinion, not a strict guideline on how the project or the PMC must vote (we are not vote machines after all), but a guideline what the nomination should look like.

But I don't want to stand in the way if a majority likes the "quality" term. After all, "Eclipse Quality" is among the guiding principles of our development process, so why not shoot for it from the beginning.

Cheers,

--

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CLONINGER ERIC-DCP874
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:43 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I'm in agreement with Mark on this one. The commitments should have some heft to them in terms of impact. Making three changes to misspelled words or linking something in a plugin manifest isn't exactly a quality contribution.

So says the man whose one code commit to date is a one-line change to plugin.xml...

In practical terms, I don't see a lot of people standing in line to be committers one way or the other. How does this work in bigger projects? Do you have a lot of people who don't work for the primary corporate sponsors making a lot of contributions?

-E

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:58 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list; dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I agree to defer to the project committers on determining what makes for a quality contribution to a specific project. However, I think our policy statement should give some guidance to the projects regarding our expectation that the contributions be of some quality rather than just some trivial thing done to check the box. So can we add the word "quality" or "significant" in front of contribution?

Mark

"Gaff, Doug"
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/11/2008 08:37 AM

Please respond to
DSDP PMC list

To

"DSDP PMC list"

cc

Subject

RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I like your suggestion Martin. Does anyone else on the PMC have an opinion?

Committer Nominations must reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of contribution. At least one of these must be a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 6:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi all,

I don't think that quality of the contributions is really relevant at this point,
since that's up to the project (and nominator) to decide. What counts for
me is openness, transparency, and observing IP rules of engagement.

Moreover, becoming a committer is about committing Code, so at least
one of these contributions should be some code which actually made it into
the code base and thus shows that the contributor went through the
IP process.

Since Bugzilla is the only allowed means of inbound contribution (yes,
you cannot just copy & paste stuff from the mailing list into CVS -
see Figure 11 on http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
I'm in favor of requiring one bugzilla.

There's a corner case in Figure 2 of the Legal poster (contributors from
same company under supervision of the pmc don't need bugzilla). But
since this corner case is neither Open nor Transparent, I'm in favor
of requiring bugzilla also in this case.

All this being said, what about this wording:

Committer Nominations must reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of contribution. At least one of these must be a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project.

References should be by means of hyperlink (URL) for easy review,
and can be mailing list, wiki or newsgroup contributions.

Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list; dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I like it with the following adjustments:

Candidate should have 3 good records of contribution: patches in bugzilla, good mailing list, wiki or news group contributions. One contribution must be from the nominating project.

"Gaff, Doug"
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/07/2008 09:45 AM

Please respond to
DSDP PMC list

To

"DSDP PMC list"

cc

Subject

RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Minutes updated. Thanks again for the progress on the project plans.

Here is our proposal for future committer votes:

Propose 3 good records of contribution: patches in bugzilla, good mailing list contributions. Ok if one of those records is from another project.

Is this what we agreed to?

Action items:

Mark: Convert his eRCP plan slides to XML format by end of August
All: Finish project plans by Aug 31 so we can review in Sept meeting.
ALL: Complete the drafts of Board Report by end of August. Word document.
Mark: Check with Uriel to see if he's going to submit a paper to ESE.
Christian: Submit an ESE talk - could cover MTJ and TmL or Eclipse in Mobile.
Dave: Submit an ESE talk.
Doug: create the DSDP incubator and build the initial website.
Dave: Contact Eclipse legal about best terms of use for their vserver wiki.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:02 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi folks,

I’ve updated the agenda for the meeting.

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/PMC/PMC_Minutes_7Aug08

Please add anything else you’d like to talk about. If you cannot attend, please let the group know.

The most important action item is a first draft of your project plan to review prior to the meeting. Please link it in the portal so that we can view them rendered, e.g.

http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=dsdp.tm

Doug_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc

RE: [dsdp-pmc] Board Report

doug.gaff@xxxxxxx (Gaff, Doug) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:35:03 GMT

I originally wanted Word, but I like this better, especially since people are making progress early.

So wiki is fine.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:11 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] Board Report

I thought you wanted Word format? If the Wiki is fine as well,

I'm going to use Wiki. Or do you prefer Word?

Cheers,

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:06 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] Board Report

Hi folks

Both TmL and MTJ have put their initial board report material on the wiki:

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/TML/BoardReport2008

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/MTJ/BoardReport2008

This is great. Kudos to Eric and Christian’s teams for getting a jump on this.

Doug

RE: [dsdp-pmc] Board Report

Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxx (Oberhuber, Martin) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:10:55 GMT

I thought you wanted Word format? If the Wiki is fine as well,

I'm going to use Wiki. Or do you prefer Word?

Cheers,

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:06 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] Board Report

Hi folks

Both TmL and MTJ have put their initial board report material on the wiki:

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/TML/BoardReport2008

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/MTJ/BoardReport2008

This is great. Kudos to Eric and Christian’s teams for getting a jump on this.

Doug

RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

rogalski@xxxxxxx (Mark Rogalski) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:41:33 GMT

Sounds good.

"Oberhuber, Martin"
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/13/2008 01:28 PM

Please respond to
DSDP PMC list

To	"DSDP PMC list"
cc
Subject	RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi Doug,

the CDT is different than the projects we're dealing with here -- it's got
a mature, much-used code base and most contributions are bug fixes.

The projects that we're dealing with here are young and it's very important
for them to get new committers. Therefore, we try to make the roadblocks
for new committers as small as possible; especially in cases where
committers from other projects (with existing Eclipse / IP process
knowledge) get added to the new project.

I agree, though, that we must not risk weakness of the IP due diligence
process as well as the Eclipse principles of Meritocracy, Openness
and Transparency. That's why it's important for me to have the 3
contributions referenced by means of a clickable hyperlink, to make
the review process as sooth and easy as possible. Reviewing
these contributions should then allow at least some judgement
of the contributor.

Requiring the patch to be actually applied is a good idea, since that
highlights the requirement to have gone through the IP due diligence
process at least once. I agree that as the PMC we should encourage
projects to use bugzilla, ipzilla, CVS/SVN and the patch mechanism
a lot, because with using it comes the experience that makes the
process smooth and not a hurdle any more.

What about the following:

Committer Nominations must reference (by clickable hyperlink) at least
3 good quality, publicly visible records of contribution. At least one of these
must be a patch in bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project, which has
been applied into the codebase.

Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:25 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

The CDT standard is around 10 patches. They don't have to be big, though, but they do have to have been applied, which I assume (hope) implies quality. And we only have the "community" road. I imaging smaller projects may require a "company" road to build up their numbers, but it does go against the meritocracy theme, and there is no reason why these guys could work with the committers they work with to get their patches through until they earn their rights.

Doug.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:09 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi all,

my experience with other (larger projects) is, that there are basically
two roads to becoming a committer:

The "community" road: a person or company gets interested in some technology, starts using it, finds bugs or wants enhancements and starts contributing. On this road, it is typical to have 5 patches or more in bugzilla before the project team invites the person to becoming a committer. I've seen this in my own project, but also the Platform, Apache Commons, RXTX, JSch.
The "company" road: company X already has some committers on the project and wants to add one more. On this road, requirement for publicly visible contributions is an annoying barrier, but still important in order to give the entire community a chance to vote on the new person.

In both cases, I do not think that there is a strict requirement with respect to the quality of the patches. For one, I've had a contribution which in the end DELETED one line of code only (so the count is -1 LOC) but it was a very valuable bugfix and result of some deep investigations of the code.

But also in the "company" case, what really counts for me is the public visibility, and fostering a process walkthrough and understanding. If company X tries to push in a committer with low-quality one-liners, then the rest of the community (or even the PMC) could still vote -1 on the committer. What we are establishing here is, in my opinion, not a strict guideline on how the project or the PMC must vote (we are not vote machines after all), but a guideline what the nomination should look like.

But I don't want to stand in the way if a majority likes the "quality" term. After all, "Eclipse Quality" is among the guiding principles of our development process, so why not shoot for it from the beginning.

Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CLONINGER ERIC-DCP874
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:43 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I'm in agreement with Mark on this one. The commitments should have some heft to them in terms of impact. Making three changes to misspelled words or linking something in a plugin manifest isn't exactly a quality contribution.

So says the man whose one code commit to date is a one-line change to plugin.xml...

In practical terms, I don't see a lot of people standing in line to be committers one way or the other. How does this work in bigger projects? Do you have a lot of people who don't work for the primary corporate sponsors making a lot of contributions?

-E

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:58 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list; dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I agree to defer to the project committers on determining what makes for a quality contribution to a specific project. However, I think our policy statement should give some guidance to the projects regarding our expectation that the contributions be of some quality rather than just some trivial thing done to check the box. So can we add the word "quality" or "significant" in front of contribution?

Mark

"Gaff, Doug"
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/11/2008 08:37 AM

Please respond to
DSDP PMC list

To	"DSDP PMC list"
cc
Subject	RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I like your suggestion Martin. Does anyone else on the PMC have an opinion?

Committer Nominations must reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of contribution. At least one of these must be a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 6:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi all,

I don't think that quality of the contributions is really relevant at this point,
since that's up to the project (and nominator) to decide. What counts for
me is openness, transparency, and observing IP rules of engagement.

Moreover, becoming a committer is about committing Code, so at least
one of these contributions should be some code which actually made it into
the code base and thus shows that the contributor went through the
IP process.

Since Bugzilla is the only allowed means of inbound contribution (yes,
you cannot just copy & paste stuff from the mailing list into CVS -
see Figure 11 on http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
I'm in favor of requiring one bugzilla.

There's a corner case in Figure 2 of the Legal poster (contributors from
same company under supervision of the pmc don't need bugzilla). But
since this corner case is neither Open nor Transparent, I'm in favor
of requiring bugzilla also in this case.

All this being said, what about this wording:

Committer Nominations must reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of contribution. At least one of these must be a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project.

References should be by means of hyperlink (URL) for easy review,
and can be mailing list, wiki or newsgroup contributions.

Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list; dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I like it with the following adjustments:

Candidate should have 3 good records of contribution: patches in bugzilla, good mailing list, wiki or news group contributions. One contribution must be from the nominating project.

"Gaff, Doug"
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/07/2008 09:45 AM

Please respond to
DSDP PMC list

To	"DSDP PMC list"
cc
Subject	RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Minutes updated. Thanks again for the progress on the project plans.

Here is our proposal for future committer votes:

Propose 3 good records of contribution: patches in bugzilla, good mailing list contributions. Ok if one of those records is from another project.

Is this what we agreed to?

Action items:

Mark: Convert his eRCP plan slides to XML format by end of August
All: Finish project plans by Aug 31 so we can review in Sept meeting.
ALL: Complete the drafts of Board Report by end of August. Word document.
Mark: Check with Uriel to see if he's going to submit a paper to ESE.
Christian: Submit an ESE talk - could cover MTJ and TmL or Eclipse in Mobile.
Dave: Submit an ESE talk.
Doug: create the DSDP incubator and build the initial website.
Dave: Contact Eclipse legal about best terms of use for their vserver wiki.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:02 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi folks,

Iâve updated the agenda for the meeting.

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/PMC/PMC_Minutes_7Aug08

Please add anything else youâd like to talk about. If you cannot attend, please let the group know.

The most important action item is a first draft of your project plan to review prior to the meeting. Please link it in the portal so that we can view them rendered, e.g.

http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=dsdp.tm

Doug_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc_______________________________________________ dsdp-pmc mailing list dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
_______________________________________________ dsdp-pmc mailing list dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxhttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc

[dsdp-pmc] Board Report

doug.gaff@xxxxxxx (Gaff, Doug) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:06:15 GMT

Hi folks

Both TmL and MTJ have put their initial board report material on the wiki:

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/TML/BoardReport2008

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/MTJ/BoardReport2008

This is great. Kudos to Eric and Christian’s teams for getting a jump on this.

Doug

From: CLONINGER ERIC-DCP874 [mailto:ericc@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:50 PM
To: Gaff, Doug
Subject: Updated TmL Board Report

Now, on the wiki for your amusement. I am taking input from internal stakeholders and I'll let you know when it's ready.

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/TML/BoardReport2008

-E

Eric Cloninger

Sr. Product Manager, MOTODEV Studio for Linux

Eclipse Tools for Mobile Linux Project Lead

ericc@xxxxxxxxxxxx, +1 408-731-6500

RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxx (Oberhuber, Martin) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:28:38 GMT

Hi Doug,

the CDT is different than the projects we're dealing with here -- it's got
a mature, much-used code base and most contributions are bug fixes.

The projects that we're dealing with here are young and it's very important

for them to get new committers. Therefore, we try to make the roadblocks

for new committers as small as possible; especially in cases where

committers from other projects (with existing Eclipse / IP process

knowledge) get added to the new project.

I agree, though, that we must not risk weakness of the IP due diligence

process as well as the Eclipse principles of Meritocracy, Openness

and Transparency. That's why it's important for me to have the 3

contributions referenced by means of a clickable hyperlink, to make

the review process as sooth and easy as possible. Reviewing

these contributions should then allow at least some judgement
of the contributor.

Requiring the patch to be actually applied is a good idea, since that

highlights the requirement to have gone through the IP due diligence

process at least once. I agree that as the PMC we should encourage

projects to use bugzilla, ipzilla, CVS/SVN and the patch mechanism

a lot, because with using it comes the experience that makes the

process smooth and not a hurdle any more.

What about the following:

Cheers,

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:25 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

The CDT standard is around 10 patches. They don't have to be big, though, but they do have to have been applied, which I assume (hope) implies quality. And we only have the "community" road. I imaging smaller projects may require a "company" road to build up their numbers, but it does go against the meritocracy theme, and there is no reason why these guys could work with the committers they work with to get their patches through until they earn their rights.

Doug.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:09 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi all,

my experience with other (larger projects) is, that there are basically

two roads to becoming a committer:

The "community" road: a person or company gets interested in some technology, starts using it, finds bugs or wants enhancements and starts contributing. On this road, it is typical to have 5 patches or more in bugzilla before the project team invites the person to becoming a committer. I've seen this in my own project, but also the Platform, Apache Commons, RXTX, JSch.

The "company" road: company X already has some committers on the project and wants to add one more. On this road, requirement for publicly visible contributions is an annoying barrier, but still important in order to give the entire community a chance to vote on the new person.

In both cases, I do not think that there is a strict requirement with respect to the quality of the patches. For one, I've had a contribution which in the end DELETED one line of code only (so the count is -1 LOC) but it was a very valuable bugfix and result of some deep investigations of the code.

But also in the "company" case, what really counts for me is the public visibility, and fostering a process walkthrough and understanding. If company X tries to push in a committer with low-quality one-liners, then the rest of the community (or even the PMC) could still vote -1 on the committer. What we are establishing here is, in my opinion, not a strict guideline on how the project or the PMC must vote (we are not vote machines after all), but a guideline what the nomination should look like.

But I don't want to stand in the way if a majority likes the "quality" term. After all, "Eclipse Quality" is among the guiding principles of our development process, so why not shoot for it from the beginning.

Cheers,

--

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CLONINGER ERIC-DCP874
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:43 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I'm in agreement with Mark on this one. The commitments should have some heft to them in terms of impact. Making three changes to misspelled words or linking something in a plugin manifest isn't exactly a quality contribution.

So says the man whose one code commit to date is a one-line change to plugin.xml...

In practical terms, I don't see a lot of people standing in line to be committers one way or the other. How does this work in bigger projects? Do you have a lot of people who don't work for the primary corporate sponsors making a lot of contributions?

-E

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:58 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list; dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I agree to defer to the project committers on determining what makes for a quality contribution to a specific project. However, I think our policy statement should give some guidance to the projects regarding our expectation that the contributions be of some quality rather than just some trivial thing done to check the box. So can we add the word "quality" or "significant" in front of contribution?

Mark

"Gaff, Doug"
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/11/2008 08:37 AM

Please respond to
DSDP PMC list

To
"DSDP PMC list"

cc

Subject
RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I like your suggestion Martin. Does anyone else on the PMC have an opinion?

Committer Nominations must reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of contribution. At least one of these must be a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 6:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi all,

I don't think that quality of the contributions is really relevant at this point,
since that's up to the project (and nominator) to decide. What counts for
me is openness, transparency, and observing IP rules of engagement.

Moreover, becoming a committer is about committing Code, so at least
one of these contributions should be some code which actually made it into
the code base and thus shows that the contributor went through the
IP process.

Since Bugzilla is the only allowed means of inbound contribution (yes,
you cannot just copy & paste stuff from the mailing list into CVS -
see Figure 11 on http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
I'm in favor of requiring one bugzilla.

There's a corner case in Figure 2 of the Legal poster (contributors from
same company under supervision of the pmc don't need bugzilla). But
since this corner case is neither Open nor Transparent, I'm in favor
of requiring bugzilla also in this case.

All this being said, what about this wording:

Committer Nominations must reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of contribution. At least one of these must be a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project.

References should be by means of hyperlink (URL) for easy review,
and can be mailing list, wiki or newsgroup contributions.

Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list; dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

I like it with the following adjustments:

Candidate should have 3 good records of contribution: patches in bugzilla, good mailing list, wiki or news group contributions. One contribution must be from the nominating project.

"Gaff, Doug"
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/07/2008 09:45 AM

Please respond to
DSDP PMC list

To
"DSDP PMC list"

cc

Subject
RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Minutes updated. Thanks again for the progress on the project plans.

Here is our proposal for future committer votes:

Propose 3 good records of contribution: patches in bugzilla, good mailing list contributions. Ok if one of those records is from another project.

Is this what we agreed to?

Action items:

Mark: Convert his eRCP plan slides to XML format by end of August
All: Finish project plans by Aug 31 so we can review in Sept meeting.
ALL: Complete the drafts of Board Report by end of August. Word document.
Mark: Check with Uriel to see if he's going to submit a paper to ESE.
Christian: Submit an ESE talk - could cover MTJ and TmL or Eclipse in Mobile.
Dave: Submit an ESE talk.
Doug: create the DSDP incubator and build the initial website.
Dave: Contact Eclipse legal about best terms of use for their vserver wiki.

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:02 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7

Hi folks,

I’ve updated the agenda for the meeting.

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/PMC/PMC_Minutes_7Aug08

Please add anything else you’d like to talk about. If you cannot attend, please let the group know.

The most important action item is a first draft of your project plan to review prior to the meeting. Please link it in the portal so that we can view them rendered, e.g.

http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=dsdp.tm

Doug_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc_______________________________________________ dsdp-pmc mailing list dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxhttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc

RE: [dsdp-pmc] TM XML Project Plan

Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxx (Oberhuber, Martin) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:20:57 GMT

I'd hope that it will eventually come live, but I might be mistaken since the

Platform team will also need to migrate to an XML plan :-)

Right now it looks like the Platform is lazy. They don't have an "About this Project" link to
http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project_summary.php?projectid=eclipse

they don't have any XML plan and they don't have any 3.5 plan.

Cheers,

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CLONINGER ERIC-DCP874
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:48 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] TM XML Project Plan

Martin,

I used parts of your TM plan. One of the links there is for the "Eclipse Platform 3.5 Project Plan" and points to http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/development/eclipse_project_plan_3_5.html#TargetOperatingEnvironments

This link is not currently valid. Do you (and I) need a new link or will this one eventually become live?

Thanks

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:13 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] TM XML Project Plan

FYI,

I created a template of the TM 3.1 project plan for Galileo.

Feel free to copy & modify for your own XML project plans:

TM 3.0 Raw form: http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm/development/tm_plan_3_1.xml

TM 3.0 Rendered: http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=dsdp.tm

Cheers,

--

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:53 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] TM XML Project Plan

XML Project Plan

TM 3.0 Raw form: http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm/development/tm_plan_3_0.xml

TM 3.0 Rendered: http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=dsdp.tm

Official format description: http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Project_Plan

See also https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=215301#c61

The XML must be registered in the http://portal.eclipse.org in order to

be renderable, but I requested to get that changed:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=238434

Packaging Proposal

http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/Package

Cheers,

--

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm