Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 344041

Summary:	[EDP] Yearly reviews are no longer required
Product:	Community	Reporter:	Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton>
Component:	Architecture Council	Assignee:	eclipse.org-architecture-council
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	john.arthorne, stepper
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Linux
URL:	http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process_2014/#6_3_Reviews
Whiteboard:
Bug Depends on:
Bug Blocks:	367236

Description Wayne Beaton

2011-04-27 16:19:20 EDT

A project needs to do either a release, restructuring, or continuation review every year. The only exception is that permanent incubator projects are not required to have reviews of any kind. We need do a better job of policing this...

Maybe we should take this opportunity to require that a projects (with the exception of permanent incubators) must do a *release* every year.

From David Williams:

My thoughts are it might be a bit much to _require_ a release every year ... seems there'd be so many qualifications (e.g. initial release might take 15 months .. then to align with yearly release the next one might take 18 months, etc.).

But, perhaps the "intent" could be better codified with wording (around section 6.3) such as "... the expectation is that a Project will release once per year. If they do not, the projects PMC should ask for a formal continuation review to clarify what the plan is to get to a release". Or similar.

Comment 1 Wayne Beaton

2011-05-19 14:31:40 EDT

There does not appear to be any traction on this. I have removed the blocker on Bug 342328. We'll leave this open for consideration in the next iteration.

Comment 2 John Arthorne

2013-08-21 13:51:57 EDT

So I have to ask the obvious question, do we need this rule at all. I don't recall this ever being enforced, and have never seen a Continuation Review occur. Can we simply say it is the responsibility of the PMC to monitor and terminate inactive projects and avoid this "once a year" rule entirely (and remove concept of Continuation Review as well). I think there is enough inherent motivation to holding releases without having to impose this.

Comment 3 Wayne Beaton

2013-08-21 13:56:43 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)
> So I have to ask the obvious question, do we need this rule at all. I don't
> recall this ever being enforced, and have never seen a Continuation Review
> occur. Can we simply say it is the responsibility of the PMC to monitor and
> terminate inactive projects and avoid this "once a year" rule entirely (and
> remove concept of Continuation Review as well). I think there is enough
> inherent motivation to holding releases without having to impose this.

I like the idea of putting more responsibility in the hands of the PMC.

Comment 4 Wayne Beaton

2013-08-21 14:53:27 EDT

This is starting to feel like a duplicate of Bug 325004. Any objection to marking it as such?

Comment 5 John Arthorne

2013-08-21 15:45:30 EDT

Mostly, but there remains this paragraph at the beginning of 6.3:

"All Projects are required to participate in at least one Review per year."

And the idea of replacing that with oversight of inactive projects by the PMC. Maybe the Termination Review section could add a paragraph such as, "The PMC is responsible for initiating Termination Reviews for any project that has been inactive for extended periods."

Comment 6 Wayne Beaton

2013-08-21 16:04:13 EDT

(In reply to comment #5)
> Mostly, but there remains this paragraph at the beginning of 6.3:
> 
> "All Projects are required to participate in at least one Review per year."

I just saw this myself (Bug 325004 Comment 7).

> And the idea of replacing that with oversight of inactive projects by the
> PMC. Maybe the Termination Review section could add a paragraph such as,
> "The PMC is responsible for initiating Termination Reviews for any project
> that has been inactive for extended periods."

Earlier in section 6.3, it states "Projects are responsible for initiating the appropriate reviews. However, if a Project does not do so and the EMO believes a Review is necessary, the EMO may initiate a Review on the Project's behalf."

Maybe we can just extend this be "EMO or PMC". Or should we just change "EMO" to "PMC". That makes more sense to me (and is a better reflection of reality).

Comment 7 John Arthorne

2013-08-21 16:32:21 EDT

(In reply to comment #6)
> Maybe we can just extend this be "EMO or PMC". Or should we just change
> "EMO" to "PMC". That makes more sense to me (and is a better reflection of
> reality).

I can imagine cases where the EMO might need to step in, for example if an entire PMC is inactive.

Comment 8 Eike Stepper

2013-08-29 12:53:34 EDT

The goal of this part of the EDP seems to be the identification of projects that no longer provide value to anybody. If that's true I question that a requirement for periodic reviews of any type (a continuation review would just indicate "we have nothing new to release but we *think* we still provide value to somebody", right?) is any better than requiring at least one reply to at least one forum question.

+1 for leaving the final termination clarification to the PMCs and not overly complicating the EDP and its application for project leads.

Comment 9 Wayne Beaton

2013-09-27 13:50:03 EDT

I've removed the line. I believe that section 4.6 "Leaders" already gives PMCs the necessary power/responsibility to keep the project moving in the right direction.