Greg, while I do not see any problem having several project leads, and while I think this is not something the EE4J PMC shoud decide about as it is not a EE4J-specific problem, I'd though like to propose a completely different approach. Just as an idea. In the Eclipse eco system, the role of "Review Team" is to be fulfilled by committers, not by project leads. If you have 15 committers, then you possibly have too much committers which should be simple contributors instead; you do not have too less project leads. It is completely up to your project to decide all about that, but maybe it would be best to simply turn committers into contributors, and have the rest of the committers be the "core review team" then? -Markus Von: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Greg Wilkins
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Januar 2020 18:15
An: EE4J PMC Discussions
Betreff: Re: [ee4j-pmc] Additional spec lead for servlet-api? Paul et al, I could not disagree more about the need for a "core review team". Currently the servlet-api project has 15 committers and we have already had issues where a PR has been made by one, review by another, merged all without knowledge of the spec leads and in a few hours (which were the middle of the night for both spec leads). We've even had release candidates made in similar ways. To combat this, we have said that all PRs need approval from a spec lead - thus we have defacto created a core review team. the proposal to include Mark as a co-lead exactly intended to increase the "core review team". I just do not believe that 15 equal committers can collaborate productively without some structure. I don't want the old single leader commits everything model, but the 15 equal committers is too far the other way. We are striving for a happy medium. I'm not sure on what basis the vote should be stopped. It's been proposed, if the vote gets up, then we have 3 leads. If enough people think it is a bad idea, then the vote wont get up and we'll only have 2 leads. I also agree that 3 leads seems excessive when the primary role of the lead is to be a guiding voice on process rather than making decisions and having some sort of special privilege within the project. If there are specific reviews/work that are required within the Servlet project that man/brain power is required for then some threads should be started in the project in my opinion to get input from the rest of the committers on the project and allow them to offer a helping hand wherever necessary. I think we need to get away from the concept of having a "core review team" and be more transparent within the individual projects. Hi, Though I voted for Mark, based on the fact he's very active and experienced, I do agree with 3 Project Leads being too much. Perhaps in this case Greg might want to step down then? I agree with what Kevin said about a number of leads. One lead is ideal, two is acceptable, more than two is too many. I don’t have anything agains Mark, he is a great project lead, but I think that in order to get him elected someone needs to step out to keep a number of leads reasonable. I don’t agree with complete elimination of Project Lead role. I see this situation as a consequence of misunderstanding of what project lead role is. We should work more on explaining EDP to committers and make it more clear. - Dmitry
Yes, let's put it on the agenda. I don't think it is a big problem. More a communication thing that we need to continue doing for a while in order to get the thought of a spec lead role to go away. After all, it is 20 years of history we are competing with. It will take some time, but we will get there :) I guess I was too late with this input since I see that the vote already started... :-)
Ivar,
Let's put this on our agenda for our next call. I'm concerned that this proliferation of Project Leads can be misconstrued as a requirement to make decisions for a given Project. We need to emphasize that the Project committers and community are key to making decisions. The Project Leads should be considered "shephards" of the process, not Specification Leads (as in the old JCP definition). Even the title of this note thread seems to imply "spec leads" vs "project leads". Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From: "Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J PMC Discussions <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 01/23/2020 08:10
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ee4j-pmc] Additional spec lead for servlet-api?
Sent by: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Question... do you really need a third Project lead to enable these wheels of progress? Remember, we do not have Specification Leads like we did in the JCP days. The Project Lead is used to help the project team follow and adhere to the Eclipse processes. All committers on the Project should have equal footing to enable progress on the Specifications, APIs, and the TCK (if there is one in the Servlet project). I would really question why a third Project Lead is required.
A bit of background... I know from past experiences both with Jakarta EE and MicroProfile that even two Project Leads is questionable by Eclipse. But, we have found two Project Leads to be useful to help even the playing field. For example, with MicroProfile, myself and John Clingan are co-Project Leads. We communicate on a regular basis and we cover for each other when the other can't do the Project Lead responsibilities due to vacation or other work activities. We have never entertained the thought of requiring a third Project Lead. All of the MicroProfile committers chip in to help with the various project responsibilities.
One bad example is the EE4J Platform Project. Here we have six Project Leads. The reason is that when all of these Projects were getting created for Jakarta EE, we didn't want to spend the time to determine the proper Project Leads. So, all of the lead organizations ante'd up a person and we all became Project Leads. Again, I know that Eclipse wasn't thrilled with this approach. And, we should probably revisit this at some point.
So, going forward with nominating another Project Lead is your project's choice. As Ivar mentioned, it is a required vote among all of the committers on the Servlet Project. I would just consider whether another Project Lead is really necessary to accomplish what you are looking for. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From: Ivar Grimstad <ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J PMC Discussions <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 01/23/2020 00:46
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ee4j-pmc] Additional spec lead for servlet-api?
Sent by: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Greg,
You can propose a new project lead and start an election among the committers using the committee tools on the servlet project page https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.servlet/developer
Ivar
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 08:21 Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi PMC,
Stuart and I would like to add Mark Thomas as a third co-lead in the servlet-spec project. Having the extra man power and a third brain in the core review team would grease the wheels of progress. What is the process to make this happen?
regards
--
Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> CTO http://webtide.com
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
-- Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Eclipse Foundation: The Platform for Open Innovation and Collaboration _______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc _______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
-- |
