(Note: I have moved this conversation from the wiki page to this
newsgroup because the newsgroup seemed like a better place to have a
back-and-forth conversation. A summary of, and pointer to, this
conversation is on the wiki page.)
>>>> Dave Bernstein writes:
>>>> Is there a summary of the issues motivating this revision?
>>>> If so, please provide a URL. If not, this would seem like
>>>> a good first step.
>>>
>>> Dave Berstein writes:
>>>
http://eclipse-projects.blogspot.com/2006/09/your-comments-on-eclipse-development.html
>>> says
>>> "The goal of this revision is update the process-as-written
>>> to match the process-as-practiced. We've also added a new
>>> section about mentorship and a requirement that projects get
>>> a public review at least annually."
>>>
>>> Two questions:
>>> * What are the significant differences between the
>>> process-as-written and the process-as-practiced?
>>> * Is the process-as-practiced in all respects superior to
>>> the process-as-written?
>>
>> Bjorn Freeman-Benson writes:
>> I cannot speak for the entire community, but some of the
>> differences which are readily observable by watching the
>> projects include: (i) no Validation phase; yes Incubation phase;
>> (ii) sub-projects with sub-projects; (iii) Architecture Council
>> is ineffective; (iv) Reviews are poorly attended; (v) the level
>> of framework-ness (to coin a phrase) across projects is highly
>> variable; etc. Whether the new process is superior to the old is
>> up to the community to decide - I certainly hope that
>> collectively we improve the process and I appreciate everyone
>> who is taking the time to work towards that end.
>
> Dave Bernstein writes:
> re "(i) no Validation phase; yes Incubation phase" - a
> project's Validation phase could be arbitrarily short, but the
> EMO is responsible for holding a Checkpoint review before the
> Implementation phase begins. Are Checkpoint reviews routinely
> held? How is an Incubation phase different than a Validation
> phase?
>
> re "(ii) sub-projects with sub-projects" - where is this
> addressed in the proposed update?
>
> re "(iii) Architecture Council is ineffective" - I'm
> extremely dissapointed to hear this. In what ways is this
> Council ineffective. What action has the EMO taken, and what
> has been their result? Where in the proposed update is
> this problem addressed?
>
> re "(iv) Reviews are poorly attended" - Have you polled the
> Eclipse community to determine why this is the case? What
> did you learn? Where in the proposed update is this problem
> addressed?
>
> re "(v) the level of framework-ness (to coin a phrase) across
> projects is highly variable; etc." -- If we're going to coin
> phrases, lets coin ones that are explicit and meaningful; I
> have no idea what "framework-ness" means; Can you be more
> explicit? Where in the proposed update is this problem
> addressed?
>
> My impression is that the proposed update addresses few of
> what you cite as the differences between the process-as-written
> and the process-as-practiced, but contains lots of commentary
> on unrelated matters.
(iv) This issue has also been discussed at length with the Board and the
project leadership. The proposed Development Process revision is the
outcome of those discussions... However, if you have a better idea, I'm
sure that all of us in the community would be happy to consider it.
(v) The mentorship proposal was proposed by the Planning Council and the
Board of Directors to address concerns about quality of APIs,
frameworks, and tools across the Eclipse projects.