Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Buildship to join Mars

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll vote my usual 0 to better let the
other members of the Planning Council decide, and would only speak up if
something was wrong with the process. In this case, I think I can clarify
the purpose of "making an extra effort to engage Gradle users".
>From our Planning Council point of view, that was not so much an extra
requirement, to "gauge the quality of the Gradle project" as
it was just to make sure it get's "used enough in the Eclipse train
context" -- on such extremely short notice. Especially in this case,
since none of the planning council know much about it, and we don't have
the community we typically would (due to shortage of time) to provide much
feedback. 

You are right in saying it is not
a "criteria", but I think it would be a fair part of someone's
formula for assessing "risk versus benefit". You imply that these
following two items are the only criteria to use in judging this requested
exception: 

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

But that is not quite right. Those
are just the normal rules, and we already know they have not met those.
And that is the reason, you are asking for "an exception to the rules".
Risk versus benefit is a normal part of judging exceptions and what ever
factors or data is needed to make that decision, I think, is fair game.


I hope I am not just re-stating what,
you said, Wayne, in a different way. Plus, I am not implying "yes"
or "no" -- I really do want to be neutral. 

If someone remembers our meeting
discussion differently, then please say so. After all, it is your (Planning
Council members) responsibility to authorize exceptions and hope no one
feels like they just have to rubber stamp the request. Especially given
the alternatives we discussed at the meeting.  Plus, I will add, in
our role as Planning Council members, we are an "extension" of
the EMO -- and I think we all have the same goals and motivations in keeping
Eclipse a success! 

If anyone feels a "discussion
meeting" is required for this topic, let me know and I will schedule
it. Though, not sure it would be for this week, to meet Wayne's deadline.

Wayne, is there some other items
driving your deadline? Or did you just want to set a date? 

Thank you, 





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

_______________________________________________
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.