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

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

When asked the goal of the proposed process revision, you responded "The 
goal of this revision is update the process-as-written to match the 
process-as-practiced".



When asked how the process-as-written differs from the process-as-practiced, 
you responded with 5 items. These items and my specific recommendations 
appear below:



1.  no Validation phase; yes Incubation phase:



Restore the Validation phase and its Checkpoint Review to the proposed 
revision, as they are essential. "We currently don't implement this phase or 
hold this review" is not a justification for removing it.



2.  Sub-projects with sub-projects



Proceed with the proposed changes.



3.  Architecture Council is ineffective



If you can't convince the Strategic Developers to appropriately staff the 
Architecture Council, then find someone who can. Do not weaken the process 
to the point where it no longers requires an effective Architecture Council.



4.  Reviews are poorly attended



Proceed with the proposed changes, but I do not have sufficient data to be 
confident that they will be sufficient.



5.  The level of framework-ness (to coin a phrase) across projects is highly 
variable



As I understand "framework-ness", this is an explicit responsibility of the 
Architecture Council. Establish an effective Architecture Council, as 
suggested in #3.



The proposed process revision contains many sections containing commentary 
not relevant to any of the above 5 items, e.g. "Open Source Rules of 
Engagement", "Quality Culture", "Collective Reputation", "Eclipse Ecosystem", 
"Three Communities", "Clear and Concise", "Freedom and Autonomy", "Evolving", 
"Just Enough Process",  and "Requirements". Remove these sections from the 
proposed revision.