On Mar 29, 2018, at 21:10, Gorkem Ercan <gorkem.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Every time I rise up such project management issues, I hear from board or > council members that it should not > be a problem and because they have approved such and that. However I do not > think much of that is trickling > down to the projects because information such as these are captured on blogs, > bugzillas and not on the handbook [1] > or EDP [2]. I think this is a specific case which is a bit of a challenge because this is originally spec'd in the IP Policy document. The IP Policy uses language of a legal document and does not talk explicitly about releases and switching between releases. That's where further explanatory information (such as in blogs, wiki, faq, etc.) is necessary. I remember discussions at various conferences and other events around the IP topic then it has been discussed an introduced. I'm sorry to hear that it did not tickle down to you and your projects. I probably failed here as well because I know at least on of your projects is in Technology and I do not remember actively sending out additional information to projects. I somehow was assuming everyone would follow PlanetEclipse anyway and somehow notice the nice blogs from Wayne. In general I find it worrisome that we need additional documentation to explain our process documentation. It's probably a sign that we still have too much process. > I have been an active committer/lead on Eclipse projects since 2004 and the > way eclipse projects are > supposed to be run has not changed too much since then. You can compare 2008 > EDP [3] and see for yourself. > And every time a project tries to adopt practices that is different from EDP, > we end up with a discussion > around how to patch the day to day practice and do very little on EDP itself. I agree, that last larger revision to the EDP is quite some time ago. However, we spent quite some time reviewing and discussing it at the AC. I believe back then a significant change was the elimination of sub-projects to simplify organization. It's about time to look at a new major revision, which will happen. It's not an easy thing, though. Someone has to do the work and I believe that the EF folks are pretty hands down with the EE4J on boarding. This the AC's role to provide input to and define the EDP becomes more important. Looking forward to your input to that! :) -Gunnar _______________________________________________ incubation mailing list incubation@eclipse.org To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
