[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] FEEP Voting, Iteration #1
|
Hi Marcel,
I reconsidered this "full time committer(s)" idea and I'm still not a big fan of it. I think it's an important aspect of
FEEP that concrete defects or features are offered for bidding. And for the anticipated amount of budget available to
FEEP I don't think that, after all the highly-rated and concrete items, there's much left for these general topics. I
think it would be better to identify smaller sets of concrete bugs rather than giving all the budget to one or two never
changing persons that can then do with it what they want.
On the other hand my feelings about this aren't so strong. So I changed my votes from -2 to -1 ;-)
Cheers
/Eike
----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper
Am 19.11.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Marcel Bruch:
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
