Dear Oleg, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly reiterate the sincere appreciation I expressed to you in DM yesterday for your helpful (because you helped me discover a JEP that was previously unknown to me) and timely (because you replied to my DMs right away) assistance. While you may have interpreted my questions about the process and my resulting gesture of appreciation in a negative light, I would like to assure you and everyone else reading this thread that they were both genuine. My previous message to this list has adhered to the process established in JEP-15, chapter and verse, out of my sincere and utmost respect for the process itself and for your stewardship of it. I stand by what I wrote to you in DM yesterday and what I wrote in my previous message to this list, both of which were in good faith. It is important to remember that not everyone has been involved in the project for as long as you have been, and many newcomers like myself are either unaware of these older JEPs or unfamiliar with the context behind them. A lot of project documentation (e.g., the documentation for CLAs) is incomplete or out-of-date, so it can sometimes be difficult to determine which documentation is still relevant and which documentation is no longer relevant. As people like me learn to navigate these established processes, your patience is appreciated. Thanks for understanding.
One additional point of clarification I would like to make is that I confirmed with Strumenta that the Linux Foundation meets Strumenta's criteria for being a registered business, so VAT does not apply. Regarding the price of the engagement, I think that comes with the territory of working with legacy technology: there are relatively few people with ANTLR2 knowledge/experience who are also willing to work on legacy ANTLR2 code, so they can command a higher market rate. (I suspect something similar might be the case for COBOL programmers!) I can also disclose that I came up with this idea on my own without any prompting (either explicit or implicit) from my employer. Like you, I think it is in the long-term interest of the project for us to move forward with this upgrade and eliminate the liability of one of our most ancient dependencies. Proceeding with this engagement will pay down technical debt and eliminate an impediment to future Java Platform improvements. If there are any additional questions or concerns, please let me know! Thanks, Basil On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:17 AM Oleg Nenashev <o.v.nenas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Basil et al, > > Thanks for the follow-up. As we discussed in the DMs, with all due respect to > you and to your valuable contributions I do not appreciate the passive > aggressive tone you chose here or in the original DM conversation yesterday. > Scoffing about the adopted community process for budget approvals does not > help either. I do not such an approach helps you to get this particular issue > resolved faster, as well as it does not help in the pull requests and other > conversations I see here and there. Everyone in the community tries to > achieve the best for the project, and please use it as a default assumption > for communications. It would make the community a more pleasant place for > everyone. Thanks for understanding. > > Back to the matter, indeed the budgeting process in JEP-15 follows the > general Jenkins community decision making process where decisions happen in > async channels, not during the live meetings. As for governance and budgeting > matters, this mailing list is used. Nothing has changed in these regards > since ages, so there is no reason to be surprised a 1,900 EUR budget request, > which is 20% of the total Jenkins funds available on LFX Mentorship, would > not be approved without a formal email thread in this mailing list. Thanks > for understanding again. > > The request itself > Now I would like to share the request Basil, copying the meeting notes from > the October 03 meeting. So the feedback will be needed: > > Given the lack of volunteer interest in JENKINS-68652 or alternatives (e.g., > writing a new parser without ANTLR), Basil Crow has reached out to Federico > Tomassetti at Strumenta, a consulting firm with experience performing > migrations from ANTLR2 to ANTLR4 > > Strumenta is interested in the project and has scoped the work required to > migrate from ANTLR2 to ANTLR4 > Technical consensus has been reached on the developer mailing list (in this > thread) > Proposal from Strumenta > > Basil is requesting funding of 1,900 Euro, possibly with additional > Value-Added Tax (VAT), and approval from the governance board to engage > Strumenta to begin the project > > If approved, Basil plans to be the primary point of contact with the > Strumenta as they prepare the pull request to migrate from ANTLR2 to ANTLR4 > The code is covered by automated testing, and Basil plans to complete > additional manual smoke testing beyond that > Basil also plans to review and approve the pull request > As thanks for their discount, we will publish a blog post with technical > content describing their work and our results of their work. Basil will > coordinate the blog post with Strumenta > > Some extra context: > > At the governing board meeting, the following contributors voted in favor of > the proposal: Mark Waite, Gavin, me, Basil himself, and Kevin. Note that 3 of > these voters are directly involved with the matter and work for the same > vendor that might have a commercial interest in the fix. It does not make > difference in the consensus building process, especially since this change is > definitely beneficial for the project. > After the meeting an anonymous contributor has already shared their feedback > that the requested sum is too much for the scope of work in this project. > > Personally I am rather in favor of the request. We have money from Jenkins > supporters floating around, and we are not using them. Whether the use of the > budget is super efficient or not, as Basil said we are not moving forward > with the ticket. And it may impact vendors and end users requiring clear > security scans to have Jenkins adopted. So I keep my +1 vote for the request. > > Please share your feedback! > > Best regards, > Oleg Nenashev -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAFwNDjp2A17egKp2VxSqT%2BEOQx-42dzt3j-Sk2Hf2_RYFCBwbg%40mail.gmail.com.
