tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913369703414801920.post2437086252783456278..comments2023-07-01T07:45:54.461-07:00Comments on Konstantin's Blog: Inconvenient process? Let’s fix it.Konstantin Komissarchikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12487640637368516721noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913369703414801920.post-83080128051091129512010-08-31T13:46:11.528-07:002010-08-31T13:46:11.528-07:00https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3241...https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=324133Konstantin Komissarchikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12487640637368516721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913369703414801920.post-3303819055497112362010-08-28T14:00:38.287-07:002010-08-28T14:00:38.287-07:00Please open a bug against "Process" with...Please open a bug against "Process" with [EDP] in the title so that we can track this discussion for the next iteration.Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02277665617356449769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913369703414801920.post-26118264124589736962010-08-28T11:18:22.756-07:002010-08-28T11:18:22.756-07:00For modeling we generally create new subprojects w...For modeling we generally create new subprojects within an incubating umbrella project so that the new committers have access only to their own code. As such, no election to an existing project is involved. It's quite a heavy weight process---a full project proposal with a review is involved---but it helps filter out those who are not very serious or not very committed. This wouldn't make sense for very small contributions or where direct involvement in the established base is the intent.Ed Merkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05000982591510437551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913369703414801920.post-34462578835219152822010-08-27T10:35:40.505-07:002010-08-27T10:35:40.505-07:00I am not arguing about principles. My concerns is ...I am not arguing about principles. My concerns is for viability of incubotors at Eclipse, which serve a very important function of growing and diversifying committer base.<br /><br />It sounds like you are happy with the code quality and other explanations in this case, and I am glad for that. But what if there was no code (just an idea) or what if the code was not in good shape yet. Based on your comments, it sounds like you favor rejecting those committers. My argument is that it is inconsistent with the purpose of incubators.<br /><br />To those that say, if you don't like something go to SourceForge or EclipseLabs, I say think about what you are saying for a minute. Eclipse Foundation sustains itself on membership dues paid by companies that see the value provided by the foundation that is not provided by other OSS hosts. It is in our collective best interests to make sure that Eclipse is the best and most convenient place for OSS inovation in this space. If that ceases to be the case, the companies funding the foundation through their dues might wonder if their money is well-spent.<br /><br />> In Incubator projects without <br />> the nomination process a company <br />> might spam the projects with <br />> committers to increase their <br />> influence in the election of the <br />> Board of Directors.<br /><br />Nice conspiracy theory. Couple of flaws in it, though:<br /><br />1. A company can already "spam" Eclipse with committers. All it takes is a project proposal or two. Remember, that initial committers on a project are named, not elected.<br /><br />2. When electing committer represenatives to Board of Directors, a member company gets only 1 vote regardless of how many committers it has.<br /><br />3. You over estimate the influence of a board member or two. I say that as someone who served on the board as a committer representative for a year.<br /><br />> If you want to start an Open <br />> Source project without any <br />> nomination process<br /><br />The nomination and election process for committers only applies after the project is created. The initial group of committers are named as part of project proposal. They are not elected.<br /><br />My argument is that the same thing should happen when a new component is proposed for an existing incubator project.Konstantin Komissarchikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12487640637368516721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913369703414801920.post-38233546484844123372010-08-27T09:37:52.054-07:002010-08-27T09:37:52.054-07:00Hi Konstantin,
my intention was not to start a de...Hi Konstantin,<br /><br />my intention was not to start a debate on principles but to take the right decision in this particular case. Now that the code has been contributed and has become Open Source I have started the nominations again. The code and documentation looks pretty good, and with five committers I expect the Service Interface and Data Types Editors will graduate from WTP Incubator into the main WTP project very soon.<br /><br />In Incubator projects without the nomination process a company might spam the projects with committers to increase their influence in the election of the Board of Directors. If you want to start an Open Source project without any nomination process, you can do so already at Eclipse Labs (alias Google Code), SourcForge, GitHub, etc.<br /><br />HolgerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913369703414801920.post-45939227061698333542010-08-26T20:31:47.768-07:002010-08-26T20:31:47.768-07:00How hard it is to create and maintain a project at...How hard it is to create and maintain a project at Eclipse Labs (or SF/elsewhere, where we don't have all these restrictions) & when it comes out with flying colors, move it to the Eclipse Code base? When both the product & code base is good, there shouldn't be any issues in moving the code to Eclipse and getting committer rights for those who worked on.Prakash G.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13046268367318873066noreply@blogger.com