[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [ee4j-pmc] Additional spec lead for servlet-api?
|
It was decided from
the very start of EE4J/Jakarta EE that we would no longer have Specification
Leads. Each Eclipse Project needs at least one Project Lead. But,
I have stated over and over again that Project Leads do not equalSpecification Leads. Full stop.As far as the
list of Committers. When the Servlet
Project was first proposed,
there was a list of proposed committers. We invited all of the past
expert group members. Plus, each Strategic Member of the Jakarta
EE has the ability to appoint
a committer representation on each Specification Project.
In addition, there may have been some key industry individuals that
were invited to participate. Actually, since the Spec Lead (Ed Burns)
was no longer active on the Project, that's how we ended up inviting you,
Greg, and Stuart to be co-Project Leads. And, that may have also
been where some of the "extra" Oracle reps came from. TBH,
I can't remember the exact process for every Project. But, in the
end, anybody could have (and some did) challenge the make-up of the initial
committer list before the Project was approved.(Also, just to
explain this "appointment" process.. This was put in place to
support the Member organizations where the current committer moves onto
another job (either inside or outside of the organization). I'll
use IBM as an example. Martin Mulholland was the JSR expert group
member from IBM. Martin moved onto another role right about the time
that these Specification Projects were being proposed at Eclipse. Thus,
we put Paul Nicolluci down on the initial committer list instead of Martin.
Paul has been working on IBM's Web Container solution maybe even
longer than Martin did. In any case, this is why the Member organizations
need the ability to appoint a committer to replace exiting committers and
still stay involved with the Project.)As Project Leads,
you do not have the power to determine who will be or not be a committer.
The set of committers determine that via a vote. Any committer
can nominate another person as a committer, and then the committers can
vote on the person based on the stated merit. Similar to what's happening
with the Project Lead vote for Mark right now.I personally don't
think you can have too many committers. That normally means that
you have a vibrant community and you all help each other out. At
MicroProfile, we have 54
committers.
Does it get challenging at times to come to a consensus? Sure,
absolutely. Is it perfect? No. But, at the end of the
day, we have a better product. So, I think we have a good example
where having many diverse committers can work and does work productively.
The Servlet project needs to try this model before claiming it doesn't
work.---------------------------------------------------
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/kevinwsutterFrom:
Reza
Rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>To:
EE4J
PMC Discussions <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>Date:
01/23/2020
12:41Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [ee4j-pmc] Additional spec lead for servlet-api?Sent
by: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
To be honest, I mostly agree with Greg
here. While the JCP specification lead model had flaws, at least we know
for sure it can work. The new model sounds good in theory but no one really
knows how it will work in practice. It is a good idea to ease into the
ideal view starting from what we know can work in practice.I too am a bit mystified with the whole
previously unknown and silent committers in pretty much all of the current
projects. I think some practical reconciliation is needed for key specifications
like Servlet to move forward confidently.Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Speaker, Blogger
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community
member and do not reflect the views of my employer.On 1/23/2020 12:44 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:I don't think we have "rouge actors"
in the project and I have no reason to doubt the good will of those involved.
The process issues I've complained about were all well intentioned - just
uncontrolled.But I do think we have too many committers
(13 I miss counted) and to be honest I really don't know who most of them
are, or how they got to be committers. Most were never active on
previous servlet expert groups and most are pretty quiet and rarely say
anything. So I really fear how the project is going to work
if/when we get onto some real evolution of the project. The
thought that a group of these unknown committers could have as much influence
of the future of the servlet-api as Mark, Stuart, Bill and myself is a
worry (or perhaps they'll do something wonderful, but it's a risk).I actually would prefer only 5 or 6 committers
of those who have a long history with developing the servlet-api, but as
that is not the case then I proposed the 3 co-leads as a way to have some
structure. If we only had 5 or 6 active committers, then that would
not be necessary.regardsOn Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 18:34, Markus
KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: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. regards On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 18:00, Paul Nicolucci
<pnicolucci@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:Hi, 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. Regards, Paul Nicolucci On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:19 AM arjan
tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote: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? Kind regards,Arjan On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:50 PM Dmitry
Kornilov <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: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
On 23 Jan 2020, at 16:25, Ivar Grimstad
<ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: 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 :) Ivar On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:42 PM Kevin
Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: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
_______________________________________________
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 -- Ivar
GrimstadJakarta
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 -- 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
-- 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