I changed also my vote to +2, given the new wording. I updated the google doc.
@Lars, I updated also your 2 votes, and added a comment on them.
Regards,
Rémi
-------------------------------------------------------
Rémi SCHNEKENBURGER
+33 (0)1 69 08 48 48
CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV
Institut CARNOT CEA LIST
 www.eclipse.org/papyrus
De : eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
De la part de Lars Vogel
Envoyé : jeudi 19 novembre 2015 12:09
À : eclipse.org-architecture-council <eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] FEEP Voting, Iteration #1
Based on this information I change my vote to +2 for these two proposals.
Marcel, can you adjust my vote? I have problems accessing Google docs from my current work environment.
Am 19.11.2015 12:04 nachm. schrieb "Marcel Bruch" <marcel.bruch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Hi AC Members - in particular Lars, Eike, Konstantin, Gunnar, Remi, Pascal,
> Am 18.11.2015 um 22:57 schrieb Daniel Megert <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Let me start by saying that I told Marcel that Platform, JDT and PDE would really like to investigate AND FIX the error reports but there's just not enough resources. Hence I appreciate the direction this takes.
>
I’d like to further explain my intension on funding committers for Platform and JDT.
It seems that my choice of words about the payment model makes a difference to many AC members. At least for Gunnar and Lars according to their comments.
My aim is that the AC supports a (potential future) decision to use FEEP funding for paying developers that „just" triage and fix errors in JDT and Platform. According to the error reports, Platform has 1,500+ problematic locations in source code and JDT 2,200
code locations to inspect. The sheer quantity of these problems makes it impossible to come up with a set of bugs beforehand b/c triaging them in average likely takes more than half of the time to fix a bug. And the platform teams are currently don’t have
that time. Hence, I argue towards a „simplified triage-&-fix model“ where the payed developer can just go and fix whatever he finds.
This certainly needs a person the EF foundation believes can handle that degree of freedom. But this should not be our primary concern at the moment.
Eike,
Konstantin,
Remi,
can you please elaborate on your reasons for giving a -2? If it’s just a matter of payment model, I’m sure we can leave this part of the discussion to the EF or postpone it to a later point in time. If you disagree to the general „simplified triage-&-fix model“,
I would be interested to hear your concerns. If you agree to the general aim, I’d be happy if you update your vote.
No matter how you decide, your comments are very welcome on bug 482037 [1].
Thank you,
Marcel
[1]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=482037
--
Codetrails GmbH
The knowledge transfer company
Robert-Bosch-Str. 7, 64293 Darmstadt
Phone: +49-6151-276-7092
Mobile: +49-179-131-7721
http://www.codetrails.com/
Managing Director: Dr. Marcel Bruch
Handelsregister: Darmstadt HRB 91940
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-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.
|
