[News.eclipse.foundation] Re: [EDP] What is motivating this revision?

["Dave" <dave.bernstein@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

1. After reviewing the suggested URL, I conclude that "Incubation phase" is 
a synonym for "Validation phase". If so, I recommend making this explicit in 
proposed process revision.

2. I recommend creating a place-holder in the proposed process revision for 
the "sub-projects within sub-projects" issue so that the community knows 
that potential solutions are under discussion elsewhere, and can contribute 
if desired.

3. The architecture minutes are rather sparse, but it would appear that the 
good progress made during 2004 was not carried forward. The obvious question 
is whether the problems are best solved by improving the development 
process, by better populating and orchestrating the Council, or both. The 
statement "Someone brought up that the council needs to have an action 
focused goal" in the most recent Architecture Council meeting minutes begs 
for action, especially in light of #5 below.

4. I find nothing in the proposed process revision that would address the 
"reviews are poorly attended" issue, so its hard to suggest a better 
alternative. If I'm overlooking something, please point it out.

5. Ensuring the quality of APIs and frameworks across the Eclipse projects 
is a primary responsibility of the Architecture Council; I can think of no 
reasonable grounds on which the Architecture Council could pass on this. If 
this is the basis for your characterizing the Architecture Council as 
"ineffective", I agree. Ignoring our disagreement over how to structure it, 
a group of Mentors willing to coach new projects seems like a good idea, but 
allowing the Architecture Committee to shirk its responsibility for ensuring 
the quality of APIs and frameworks across Eclipse projects is a very bad 
idea.

     Dave


"Bjorn Freeman-Benson" <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:ehtpvp$j0a$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (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.
>
> (i) Please read these web pages: 
> http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/
>
> (ii) That issue and any potential solutions is still under discussion. See 
> http://eclipse-projects.blogspot.com/2006/10/edp-structure-and-organization-9-of-17.html
>
> (iii) I'm disappointed as well. You are welcome to read the Architecture 
> Council minutes (http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/council.php). In 
> addition, the EMO has made a number of presentations to the Board on this 
> issue - you are welcome to contact your Board member for more details 
> (http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/directors.php).
>
> (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.
>
> - Bjorn