Community
Participate
Working Groups
The EDP references Promotion Reviews as a means of turning a mature project into a Top Level Project. In practice (and this may be captured elsewhere), Top Level Projects are approved by the board, not by community review. EDP should be updated to reflect this.
No traction. I have removed the blocker on Bug 342328.
Assigning to AC for their input.
Well if promotion reviews never happen it seems like something to just remove from the dev process entirely. I suppose what really happens here is a Creation Review for a new project, and a Restructuring Review to move code into it. Since any set of reviews can be combined (section 6.3.9) it can be done together already if that makes sense. So I think Promotion Review can be removed as a specific concept without losing anything of value.
(In reply to comment #3) > Well if promotion reviews never happen it seems like something to just > remove from the dev process entirely. I suppose what really happens here is > a Creation Review for a new project, and a Restructuring Review to move code > into it. Since any set of reviews can be combined (section 6.3.9) it can be > done together already if that makes sense. So I think Promotion Review can > be removed as a specific concept without losing anything of value. Mylyn was the last project to "promote" to top-level. In the case of Mylyn, the Board approved the charter to create the top-level project and we did a restructuring review to move all the necessary bits. So it's certainly the case that a Restructuring review is probably all that we need.
Widening this a bit, we currently have 8 review types defined: 6.3.1 Creation Review 6.3.2 Graduation Review 6.3.3 Release Review 6.3.4 Promotion Review 6.3.5 Continuation Review 6.3.6 Termination Review 6.3.7 Move Review 6.3.8 Restructuring Review This feels like a bewildering amount of process, and I don't think many people have really understood what these mean. I think we could boil this down to 5: Creation Review Graduation Review Release Review Termination Review Restructuring Review And we would maintain the concept of Combining Reviews to give flexibility.
(In reply to comment #5) > This feels like a bewildering amount of process, and I don't think many > people have really understood what these mean. I think we could boil this > down to 5: > > Creation Review > Graduation Review > Release Review > Termination Review > Restructuring Review > > And we would maintain the concept of Combining Reviews to give flexibility. +1
The line "All Projects are required to participate in at least one Review per year." from section 6.3 should be removed.
I have eliminated promotion, move, and continuation reviews from the document. Since links to these sections may exist, I have left the section titles in the document, but have changed them to "[Reserved]" (In reply to comment #7) > The line "All Projects are required to participate in at least one Review per > year." from section 6.3 should be removed. Gone.
