Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Who Needs Piggyback CQs?

[Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 31/03/2015 5:08 PM, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
>> Ed,
>> 
>> Here are my thoughts on this:
>> 
>> +1 on removing the need to _manually_ manage PB CQs
>> -1 on removing PB CQs in general without replacing them with a suitable reporting/tracking mechanism
> An IP log is not suitable?  I think I'll have a hard time getting a process in place where CQs don't require approval, except maybe for PB CQs, so another approach is to automate their creation and approval.  But as I say this I'm confused what automatically generated, automatically approve CQ buys you...


Ok, so maybe I'm splitting hairs, but they way I read what I wrote should leave room for removing PB CQs. But frankly, I don't think they are the real problem. If PB CQs are required from a technical perspective to make IP Log generation and management feasible for the IP team then fine. IMHO the issue is that a PMC has to deal with re-use from Orbit dependencies and I'm absolutely in favor of anything that will remove that management from the PMC (and possibly the projects).

But maybe the motivation for removing PB CQs is different? 

>> (2) I prefer to keep the IP Log for listing such usage as per (1).
> But you want them to refer to PB CQs, not directly to the original CQs?

No preference here. I would consider this an implementation detail of the IP database.

>> (3) The IP process should change to an "opt-in" model for projects on a "per-release" base.
> I expect this is a no go.   If you don't want to follow the IP process you don't belong at Eclipse...

Keep in mind that the IP process applies to *all* forges not just www.eclipse.org projects. 

Disclaimer: It's my understanding that the change process is the same independent from the size of the change. Probably naive but that's why I thought "hey, when touch it now why don't do it proper and review all?" Maybe it's also my fear that if change goes through this year then another few years will have to pass before people will allow changing it again.

I have the feeling that with the growing number of forges and projects the IP backlog is growing too. I also don't think the IP team can grow the same way. Do all the forges really need the full IP process? I think there should be an open discussion. I would actually love to see requirements and arguments from each board member. A few years ago "Adopt and Change" was the mantra for processes at Eclipse. After over a decade ... why not the IP process too?

-Gunnar