On 11/8/11 1:47 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Another option is to change the Technology PMC charter.
It's been needing an update for a few years anyway. This might be
a good opportunity.
Do you mean updating the charter, or specifically the policy on
committer elections? If the former, I don't see how that helps EPP
get the Orbit-style policy they're proposing without contradicting
the Tech Project's own committer policy.
I do think that updating the Tech Project's committer policy to
accommodate this kind of situation isn't a bad idea. For example,
adding an "or" clause that basically says "If a nominee is already a
committer on a closely related project, the
nomination can be approved based on that existing committer status."
It seems to me that kind of clause would accommodate EPP's needs
while still maintaining integrity of the committer elections.
Thoughts?
Eric
On 11/08/2011 01:20 PM, Eric Rizzo wrote:
I'm not an EPP committer or package maintainer, just an
interested party and member of the Technology PMC. I think this
idea has a lot of merit, but one thing that stands out to me is
that the policy would be in direct contradiction with the
Technology Project's policy on committer election (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Technology#Committer_Elections)
One solution top that dilemma would be to move EPP out from
under the Technology umbrella; one could even make a case that
it doesn't really belong there anymore, as part of the original
Technology Project charter was that the sub-projects had a
finite lifespan, but EPP is an ongoing effort. Unfortunately, I
don't know under what other top-level project EPP would fit; the
only ones that I can think of as even potential candidates would
be Eclipse Project or Tools Project. But I'm not really sure
about either of those.
Sorry I don't have any more concrete ideas than that; I'm
copying the Technology PMC on this message in the hopes that
some of my committee-mates will have some input.
Eric
On 11/8/11 12:26 PM, David M Williams wrote:
Last year, all of us package maintainers became committers
on EPP, by virtue of the fact we were package maintainers.
While there is not a lot of development, per se, in EPP,
nor committing required, I know some of us have
added/removed a few things to our packages based on this
committership.
So, now, as time has passed, the question comes to mind
about a) how to "transfer" package maintainer
responsibility to someone else, and b) how to elect new
committers to EPP. Seems we should have an established
"project policy". How about if we combine the two?
Markus and I have discussed a little, and we thought it
time to raise this on epp-dev list, to see if any other
committers had opinions or points of view that differed
from ours. We were thinking that our policy in EPP be
similar to how committership in Orbit is handled. In
Orbit, if someone is a committer on another Eclipse
project, and they state they are interested in
contributing some packages to Orbit, that suffices for
them to be nominated and voted-in as a committer and
maintain what ever packages their project needs. This
differs from most other projects where, for good reason, a
person must have a history of contributions to that
specific project, not just Eclipse in general. The Orbit
model seems to fit EPP too, if some agrees to maintain a
package (either a new package, or transfer "ownership"),
and they are a committer in another Eclipse project, it
seems reasonable they would not have to have any direct
EPP contribution history. I guess the reasons to vote "no"
(-1) would be something like "no, I am the current
maintainer and I do not agree to this! :) ... or some
other fairly large issue. Normally people do not vote "0"
in Orbit, but but vote "+1" if basic criteria are met, to
be welcoming and supportive of new people coming in.
Normally, we'd propose, unless a committer explicitly
"resigns" there would be no automatic removal of a
committer just because package responsibility is
transferred, except eventually the usual "inactive"
reasons would apply ... if someone is no longer
responsible for maintaining a package and has not been
active on mailing lists, etc., for a period of 6 months or
so, the Project Lead can remove them via Eclipse Portal
for "inactivity". And, of course, committers should
explicitly resign, if appropriate, such as they are
changing responsibilities and know they have no interest
or time to be involved. (In Orbit, someone may contribute
a bundle, and then do nothing else for years, but they
stay a committer ... but every now and then, I have
removed people from the Orbit committer list, if they are
no longer are listed as the contact for maintaining a
bundle, and, obviously, do not otherwise participate in
Orbit discussions, etc.)
Does anyone object to us using the "Orbit model" of
committership? Any other suggestions on how to transfer
package "ownership"? If there are no objections and no
alternatives are forthcoming, I'll write up this policy on
our EPP Wiki in about a week and ask Markus to also
discuss with (or send note to) Technology PMC, to make
sure they would not find controversy with this policy (or,
what ever policy we end up with, from this discussion).
So, EPP Committers, let us know, here on epp-dev, what you
think of this proposed policy ... especially if you think
further discussion of alternatives is needed.
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
|