Community
Participate
Working Groups
ECF has a number of student committers and contributors, and we have need for releng work to support our regular releases, and support our continued participation in the Indigo simultaneous release. ECF has traditionally been very popular with students (e.g. the gsoc). Without some community or EF support for releng, it's unlikely that ECF will have the resources to continue to participate in the Indigo simultaneous release. We request some student funding to allow us to do the releng necessary to continue participating in the simultaneous release.
Removing dependency on cloned bug.
It's difficult for the committer reps to approve "some student funding". Can you provide a dollar amount?
(In reply to comment #2) > It's difficult for the committer reps to approve "some student funding". Can > you provide a dollar amount? The reason I say 'some student funding' is that it's not clear to me how I/we could provide a specific dollar amount that's anything other than an a** number. The actual dollar amount request is 'as much as possible'...because of course I'm aware that any actual/realistic dollar request amount (i.e. enough to get actual time) probably will be more than is available. If you need a number then use $1500/mo. That *might* buy enough student time to trick me into thinking we could do the proj mgmt and releng necessary for Indigo participation.
Has there been any progress WRT funding? Makes release planing a lot easier if ECF knows early if it gets funding or not.
Wayne, as far as I know there is GSoC ongoing again this year. What if we can get a student working on common releng templates nut just for ECF but for all the small projects? I think it should not focus on one technology because there are many topics that need to be covered for a good releng story. - features/bundle structure - product definitions - headless builds - scm integration/checkout/tagging/versioning - running builds on Hudson (nightly, manually, rebuilds) - signing on Eclipse.org - publishing to download area - download presentation (web sites, etc) I know we had Athena/CBI for this but it didn't really fly for all projects and there might be a reason. From my understanding I think the most critical issue is "just" lack of good documentation that covers the topics end-to-end. One has to look into PDE Build internals and how the Eclipse and e4 teams are using those in order to produce good results.
GSoC can't address ECF's releng issues in time for the simultaneous release. Though, I do agree that there is a lot of potential here for student's to make a big impact. As suggested on the wiki page, we could invest in a time-boxed, fixed-cost student effort along the lines of GSoC to improve releng. Can you restructure this request along these lines? I am in favour of using FoE money to fund a discrete effort to improve releng for all Eclipse projects. I would support, for example, a fixed-amount effort to create a generic Maven plug-in to sign builds (the Jetty project has done some work in this area). I would also be in favour of giving some of this money back to the webmaster team if it meant the difference in them being able hire an additional resource that could focus some significant amount of their time helping all projects work out build issues. I apologize for how frustrating this experience has been. This is a new programme and we're doing our best to get this right.
(In reply to comment #6) > GSoC can't address ECF's releng issues in time for the simultaneous release. > Though, I do agree that there is a lot of potential here for student's to make > a big impact. > > As suggested on the wiki page, we could invest in a time-boxed, fixed-cost > student effort along the lines of GSoC to improve releng. Can you restructure > this request along these lines? So what are you saying here? We/ECF have several students that have been contributing to ECF for some time...both in ECF releng and in development, testing, documentation, etc. If those students are going to be supported by FOE money at all, they are going to work primarily on ECF releng needs...as a) that's the experience they have, and b) we're not in a resource position to be making our releng resources available for other projects. If that were the case, we wouldn't be making this request. We/ECF however, do have significant releng infrastructure and expertise (relative to other small/independent-led) projects, and this could be of general benefit to the Indigo project releng. For example, our builder: https://build.ecf-project.org/jenkins/ Is mature and template-driven...and this could be of use to other projects (not the hw or network resources...we're not going to share those). Further, this builder can/does produce Maven and p2 repos both...and the expertise to do this, as well as possibly the buckminster, pde, hudson configuration may be useful for dealing with the general issues of creating Maven repos more broadly. I suspect lots of other Indigo projects can/could benefit just from the expertise of us having actually done it. There's no way that we can agree to using ECF releng resources for general Indigo releng...and so if that's the condition of receiving any FOE money then we have to refuse...because like so many other things from the EF it would mean instead of actually getting resources, we have to give them up and do more with less. That doesn't work. > > I am in favour of using FoE money to fund a discrete effort to improve releng > for all Eclipse projects. I would support, for example, a fixed-amount effort > to create a generic Maven plug-in to sign builds (the Jetty project has done > some work in this area). This is really infuriating. You advertise the FOE money as available to help with exactly the things that we/ECF are looking to get: http://aniszczyk.org/2011/01/06/friends-of-eclipse-disbursements/ And then you decide after 2 months of promotion, haggling, and hassling to reallocate these resources back to IT/Eclipse Foundation infrastructure...which, although admittedly starved for resources as well, is shared among all the projects (large and small), with disproportionate usage by the large projects. Maybe some other process should be used...I mean other than Wayne and the committer reps making the 'decision' about allocation. Because I could have told everyone last fall that this would be the direction things would eventually take with this FOE money...i.e. same ol', same ol'. > > I would also be in favour of giving some of this money back to the webmaster > team if it meant the difference in them being able hire an additional resource > that could focus some significant amount of their time helping all projects > work out build issues. Does IBM/Platform team need help working out it's build issues? Does Red Hat need help working out it's build issues? If so, then why don't they work them out...as they have the resources to work them out. Smaller, independent-led, diverse projects (a higher and higher proportion of EF projects, BTW) *really* need those resources...although they don't have any representation on the planning council, committer reps, or Board of Directors. *Those* are the projects that are going to drop out of Indigo and future simultaneous releases...not because they are lazy or incompetent, or because they don't want to be part of the simultaneous release, but because *the cost of doing the simultaneous release isn't worth it to them or their communities* relative to other things (like, for example, implementing OSGi standards, or adding other features, or having more documentation, or having more example code, or answering support emails, etc). > > I apologize for how frustrating this experience has been. This is a new > programme and we're doing our best to get this right. Well, here's one vote for getting it right...but I don't think what you are doing is right. Just look at our/my experience as project lead...we spend lots of our time (our only important resource) nagging, lobbying, haggling with committer reps, Wayne, and Board (first to get the program initiated and then requesting usage of resources as advertised for FOE), only to get exactly *nothing* from the whole program...except an offer for us to use our resources for the other simultaneous release projects. That's a net cost to us...i.e. you wasted our time instead of actually doing anything. That's bait and switch as far as I'm concerned. Well done.
(In reply to comment #7) > > As suggested on the wiki page, we could invest in a time-boxed, fixed-cost > > student effort along the lines of GSoC to improve releng. Can you restructure > > this request along these lines? I'll restate. As suggested on the wiki page, we could invest in a time-boxed, fixed-cost student effort along the lines of GSoC to improve *ECF* releng. Can you restructure this request along these lines? For completeness, a GSoC proposal is time-boxed, fixed-cost, provides a description of the problem to be solved (with moderate detail), and identifies a specific individual to do the job. > And then you decide after 2 months of promotion, haggling, and hassling to > reallocate these resources back to IT/Eclipse Foundation > infrastructure...which, although admittedly starved for resources as well, is > shared among all the projects (large and small), with disproportionate usage by > the large projects. No decision has been made. In fact, I didn't expect Bug 336864 or Bug 337981 and have been wrestling with whether or not I feel that this is a appropriate use of these funds. FWIW, this is exactly the sort of thing that FoE money has been used for in the past; the only difference now is that the community gets to weigh in to help the committer reps decide if that's how the money should be spent. > Maybe some other process should be used...I mean other than Wayne and the > committer reps making the 'decision' about allocation. Because I could have > told everyone last fall that this would be the direction things would > eventually take with this FOE money...i.e. same ol', same ol'. It is the committer reps who make the decision, not me. I have been trying to manage the process. The Committer Reps were elected by the committer members to represent the committers on the board. If you can think of a better way than for the democratically-elected representatives of the membership to make the decisions, let us know. I'm willing to try and make this better. > Does IBM/Platform team need help working out it's build issues? Does Red Hat > need help working out it's build issues? If so, then why don't they work them > out...as they have the resources to work them out. Actually they both have build and resourcing issues. > Smaller, independent-led, diverse projects (a higher and higher proportion of > EF projects, BTW) *really* need those resources...although they don't have any > representation on the planning council, committer reps, or Board of Directors. Actually, you do have representation. Your PMC represents you on the planning council. I think that your recent discussion with David Williams proves that you personally have a voice there. As an individual committer member, you have three representatives in the committer reps; these three individuals (who give quite a lot of their time to the community BTW) represent you both in this process and on the Board of Directors. > *Those* are the projects that are going to drop out of Indigo and future > simultaneous releases...not because they are lazy or incompetent, or because > they don't want to be part of the simultaneous release, but because *the cost > of doing the simultaneous release isn't worth it to them or their communities* > relative to other things (like, for example, implementing OSGi standards, or > adding other features, or having more documentation, or having more example > code, or answering support emails, etc). That's a decision that you and your project team is going to have to make. > > > > I apologize for how frustrating this experience has been. This is a new > > programme and we're doing our best to get this right. > > Well, here's one vote for getting it right...but I don't think what you are > doing is right. Just look at our/my experience as project lead...we spend lots > of our time (our only important resource) nagging, lobbying, haggling with > committer reps, Wayne, and Board (first to get the program initiated and then > requesting usage of resources as advertised for FOE), only to get exactly > *nothing* from the whole program...except an offer for us to use our resources > for the other simultaneous release projects. That's a net cost to us...i.e. > you wasted our time instead of actually doing anything. That's bait and switch > as far as I'm concerned. Well done. Do you really think that I meant to suggest that ECF should use it's "resources for the other simultaneous release projects"? Really? "Bait and switch" suggests an underlying plan. There is no such plan. Like I said, we're doing our best. I'm very sorry that we've consumed so much of your time as we try to sort out how to do this.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) <stuff deleted> > For completeness, a GSoC proposal is time-boxed, fixed-cost, provides a > description of the problem to be solved (with moderate detail), and identifies > a specific individual to do the job. Time-boxed: March, April, May, June 2011 Description of problem to be solved: Provide releng and community support for ECF 3.5 (march 2011) and 3.6 (June 2011) releases, and meeting releng requirements in Indigo Specific individual: Markus Kuppe. Markus has been an gsoc student (mentored by me) in the past, and is also the person most responsible for the existing ECF builder. <stuff deleted> > > No decision has been made. In fact, I didn't expect Bug 336864 or Bug 337981 > and have been wrestling with whether or not I feel that this is a appropriate > use of these funds. FWIW, this is exactly the sort of thing that FoE money has > been used for in the past; the only difference now is that the community gets > to weigh in to help the committer reps decide if that's how the money should be > spent. So by community weighing in...do you mean the 4 FOE Disbursement requests? <stuff deleted> > > It is the committer reps who make the decision, not me. I have been trying to > manage the process. The Committer Reps were elected by the committer members to > represent the committers on the board. If you can think of a better way than > for the democratically-elected representatives of the membership to make the > decisions, let us know. I'm willing to try and make this better. I don't think our current Board members represent very well the interests of the projects that they are not members of. I've made that clear directly (and recently) to one of the representatives. Having been a committer Board rep myself, I believe I know pretty well of what I speak. The 2011 election is mostly about re-electing the existing regime, so there isn't much likelihood of change there...so in terms of representation we're pretty much likely to remain unrepresented, I would say. Of course everyone will dismiss this criticism...and/or not do anything about it other than have an extra beer at EclipseCon, so I'm not at all optimistic for any real change, unfortunately. <stuff deleted> > > Actually, you do have representation. Your PMC represents you on the planning > council. I think that your recent discussion with David Williams proves that > you personally have a voice there. Your notion here of 'having a voice'...i.e. having people read email that's sent to a mailing list doesn't really satisfy my notion of representation. I have higher expectations for representation in a putatively 'open' organization, I guess. IMHO, the RT PMCs do a terrible job...close to nothing at all...for the projects that they are not the lead for. Little value there. <stuff deleted> > > relative to other things (like, for example, implementing OSGi standards, or > > adding other features, or having more documentation, or having more example > > code, or answering support emails, etc). > > That's a decision that you and your project team is going to have to make. Yeah...right. It's 'our choice'. In truth, it's no choice at all...if we actually listen to our community...and attempt to give them what they are asking for. <stuff deleted> > > as far as I'm concerned. Well done. > > Do you really think that I meant to suggest that ECF should use it's "resources > for the other simultaneous release projects"? Really? Sure sounds like it to me in comment 6...i.e. otherwise, how is ECF's FOE disbursement request...this bug...relevant to this: >I am in favour of using FoE money to fund a discrete effort to improve releng >for all Eclipse projects. I would support, for example, a fixed-amount effort >to create a generic Maven plug-in to sign builds (the Jetty project has done >some work in this area). Sadly, discussing these broader problems (from which a lot of secondary problems result...for the projects, their communities, and their committers) results in no benefit to anyone...because no one actually does anything about it...and it doesn't seem to me as if anyone within the EF, the Board, the committer reps, the PMCs, the councils, etc can even hear such criticism...not to mention do something about it. And it costs a lot of time, effort, and frustration for those of us willing to actually say these problems exist and suggest that something different should be done (e.g. a FOE disbursement that actually focuses on the small projects' community needs). But unfortunately nothing changes...and all is well.
The cost of release engineering is prohibitive for a great many projects at Eclipse, not just for ECF. Funding spent on improving this situation for the community as a whole, as Gunnar suggests, would be a most excellent approach, but the notion that we should focus primarily on ECF seems presumptuous at best. Consider that the entire software stream made available at Eclipse by hundreds of projects and people is what generates the donation stream we're seeing. For the month of February 2011, that donation stream yielded about $2,600. Allocating $1,500 of that---well over half---exclusively to ECF, and doing so on an on-going, long-term basis, simply does not strike me as a fair and balanced way of using funds we've all collectively helped to generate. I'd suggest we resolve this as wontfix.
(In reply to comment #10) > I'd suggest we resolve this as wontfix. I agree with Ed. Scott, I realize that you are extremely unhappy about the situation, but I don't think it would be fair to give ECF money just because you are complaining the loudest.
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > I'd suggest we resolve this as wontfix. > > I agree with Ed. > > Scott, I realize that you are extremely unhappy about the situation, but I > don't think it would be fair to give ECF money just because you are complaining > the loudest. So why do you guys even ask for disbursement submissions for FOE money? So that we could submit requests telling you guys how great you are for advertising some support for projects...only to have it actually turn out to be be nothing new at all? This is worse than useless. You guys and EF are actually doing damage to projects like ECF now. (In reply to comment #10) > The cost of release engineering is prohibitive for a great many projects at > Eclipse, not just for ECF. Funding spent on improving this situation for the > community as a whole, as Gunnar suggests, would be a most excellent approach, > but the notion that we should focus primarily on ECF seems presumptuous at > best. I repeat: Why do you guys even ask for disbursement submission requests for FOE money? Yeah...it's definitely presumptuous for me to submit FOE requests (BTW...a total of 4 FOE disbursement requests...2 from ECF, 1 for IT hw and 1 other)...as asking you guys to do anything for a project other than your own would definitely be presumptuous. Also..you should have mentioned in the original solicitation for requests that it would be labeled 'presumptuous' to actually request a disbursement for one of the things listed in the solicitation. > > Consider that the entire software stream made available at Eclipse by hundreds > of projects and people is what generates the donation stream we're seeing. For > the month of February 2011, that donation stream yielded about $2,600. > Allocating $1,500 of that---well over half---exclusively to ECF, and doing so > on an on-going, long-term basis, simply does not strike me as a fair and > balanced way of using funds we've all collectively helped to generate. Fair and balanced? An ironic choice of phrasing Ed. How about $10 per project? How about $10 to every project owned by a major corporation? How about $10 to every project with a community and/or consumers? How about $10 for every project that's depended upon by Equinox? How about $10 for projects in the simultaneous release? How about $10 for projects not in the simultaneous release. You guys are amazing. You get me to produce a number based upon need...$1,500...that you reject out of hand because it's too large...and then turn it into $0 because the request is too large. That's a fair and balanced process all right. Next time, you shouldn't even ask for requests for disbursement...you've wasted everyone's time haggling over what amounts to pennies because of your flawed notion of 'fair and balanced'. I defy you to publicly describe what you are doing...in any way...as 'fair and balanced'. Committer Board Reps: Maybe you should try 'representing' the projects and their consumer communities. It would be a welcome change. Or you could mark that bug as wontfix too.
> So why do you guys even ask for disbursement submissions for FOE money? So > that we could submit requests telling you guys how great you are for > advertising some support for projects... > only to have it actually turn out to be > be nothing new at all? This is worse than useless. You guys and EF are > actually doing damage to projects like ECF now. So the logic here is that we damage everyone to whom we say no? > > (In reply to comment #10) > > The cost of release engineering is prohibitive for a great many projects at > > Eclipse, not just for ECF. Funding spent on improving this situation for the > > community as a whole, as Gunnar suggests, would be a most excellent approach, > > but the notion that we should focus primarily on ECF seems presumptuous at > > best. > > I repeat: Why do you guys even ask for disbursement submission requests for > FOE money? To review ideas from the community and evaluate them in a fair and balanced way. We'd like not to be in a position to decide who deserves welfare and who doesn't. > > Yeah...it's definitely presumptuous for me to submit FOE requests (BTW...a > total of 4 FOE disbursement requests...2 from ECF, 1 for IT hw and 1 > other)...as asking you guys to do anything for a project other than your own > would definitely be presumptuous. Also..you should have mentioned in the > original solicitation for requests that it would be labeled 'presumptuous' to > actually request a disbursement for one of the things listed in the > solicitation. You seem very good a distorting the words of others. It's presumptuous of you to assert that ECF is deserving above all others. > > > > > Consider that the entire software stream made available at Eclipse by hundreds > > of projects and people is what generates the donation stream we're seeing. For > > the month of February 2011, that donation stream yielded about $2,600. > > Allocating $1,500 of that---well over half---exclusively to ECF, and doing so > > on an on-going, long-term basis, simply does not strike me as a fair and > > balanced way of using funds we've all collectively helped to generate. > > Fair and balanced? An ironic choice of phrasing Ed. Goodness forbid we should strive to be balanced and fair. Or worse yet, to be so narrow minded as to have an opinion different from yours. > > How about $10 per project? How about $10 to every project owned by a major > corporation? How about $10 to every project with a community and/or consumers? > How about $10 for every project that's depended upon by Equinox? How about $10 > for projects in the simultaneous release? How about $10 for projects not in > the simultaneous release. That's exactly the point. < $25 a months would be fair, balanced, but pointless. > > You guys are amazing. You get me to produce a number based upon > need...$1,500...that you reject out of hand because it's too large...and then > turn it into $0 because the request is too large. That's a fair and balanced > process all right. Giving out $0 to each project is fair and balanced. So is giving out $10, but clearly pointless. Unfortunately, larger monthly expenses are not possible. Therefore, we need to focus on something that's sensible and has an impact. > > Next time, you shouldn't even ask for requests for disbursement...you've wasted > everyone's time haggling over what amounts to pennies because of your flawed > notion of 'fair and balanced'. I defy you to publicly describe what you are > doing...in any way...as 'fair and balanced'. I challenge you to get the community to agree that ECF of all projects is so especially deserving that they should get 1/2 of all donations in perpetuity. > > Committer Board Reps: Maybe you should try 'representing' the projects and > their consumer communities. It would be a welcome change. Or you could mark > that bug as wontfix too. You should consider more carefully your attitude of entitlement. I also suggest you tone down your personal attacks. Intelligent people ought to be able to disagree in a civil way.
(In reply to comment #13) > > So why do you guys even ask for disbursement submissions for FOE money? So > > that we could submit requests telling you guys how great you are for > > advertising some support for projects... > > only to have it actually turn out to be > > be nothing new at all? This is worse than useless. You guys and EF are > > actually doing damage to projects like ECF now. > > So the logic here is that we damage everyone to whom we say no? No, the logic is that through policies and approaches you are damaging everyone. The larger/corporate-owned projects just have easier time ignoring the damage...for now. <stuff deleted> > > I repeat: Why do you guys even ask for disbursement submission requests for > > FOE money? > > To review ideas from the community and evaluate them in a fair and balanced > way. Right...that's exactly what's happening. > We'd like not to be in a position to decide who deserves welfare and who > doesn't. Huh? What's with 'welfare'? And how did FOE disbursements turn into 'welfare'? Well, I guess I now understand a little better how you are thinking about FOE disbursements. Sounds uncomfortably like other politics to me. <stuff deleted> >to > > actually request a disbursement for one of the things listed in the > > solicitation. > > You seem very good a distorting the words of others. Calling it distortion doesn't make it distortion. > It's presumptuous of you to assert that ECF is deserving above all others. I'm not asserting that. I'm submitting a disbursement request in response to public solicitation...where I know there is need. <stuff deleted> > > > > Fair and balanced? An ironic choice of phrasing Ed. > > Goodness forbid we should strive to be balanced and fair. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 > Or worse yet, to be so narrow minded as to have an opinion different from > yours. Yeah...that's right...it's all about my opinion. <stuff deleted> > > That's exactly the point. < $25 a months would be fair, balanced, but > pointless. Exactly. So I guess you have to be 'fair and balanced'...and pointless. <stuff deleted> > > turn it into $0 because the request is too large. That's a fair and balanced > > process all right. > > Giving out $0 to each project is fair and balanced. > So is giving out $10, but clearly pointless. > Unfortunately, larger monthly expenses are not possible. > Therefore, we need to focus on something that's sensible and has an impact. Like?...maybe responding to the FOE disbursement requests with something other than wontfix? <stuff deleted> > > I challenge you to get the community to agree that ECF of all projects is so > especially deserving that they should get 1/2 of all donations in perpetuity. Who said/suggested that Ed? How is making a disbursement request asserting that ECF is 'especially deserving'? Maybe we just need it, and are deserving...and those that didn't need it didn't make any requests. In that case, why would it be unfair or unbalanced to do something for a project that asks for it? WRT your 'challenge' I'll just say this: I served as a Board member myself some years ago, and as a Board member I successfully got the community to agree to do a number of things for committers and their communities. I'm no longer a Board member, and I don't think it's valid to push off rep duties onto constituents...as you seem to be suggesting. > > > > > Committer Board Reps: Maybe you should try 'representing' the projects and > > their consumer communities. It would be a welcome change. Or you could mark > > that bug as wontfix too. > > You should consider more carefully your attitude of entitlement. Why is actually making an FOE disbursement request (this bug as well as 1 other FOE disbursement request) considered an 'attitude of entitlement'? > I also suggest you tone down your personal attacks. This is not what I consider a personal attack. > Intelligent people ought to be able to disagree in a civil way. I don't consider what I'm saying uncivil. What I am saying is obviously uncomfortable for you...but it should be uncomfortable for you...given that there is truth to it, and I'm saying you are doing a poor job at representing as a whole the committers, the projects, and their communities.
Scott, The bottom line: I personally don't consider it appropriate to be using a significant chunk of the community's charity pool to fund the on-going release engineering costs of a single project. The modeling project is rife with small overburdened subprojects. I have no doubt it's a pervasive problem beyond modeling. So I'm going to say no to all such requests, because I'm going to have to say no to most of them anyway. I refuse to be in the position of explaining to the ones to whom I say no, why I say no to them, but not to the other guy. "Your project doesn't deserve it as much." "You didn't ask for it first and we ran out of money." Imagine for a moment if I supported giving funding to AMP, Teneo, and CDO, but said no to ECF. You'd have a cow or a canary, and rightly so. Perhaps you can give me some reasons they'll consider a fair justification for why I should say yes to ECF but no to them? In the end, I'd rather be uncomfortable hearing about all the legitimate problems you bring up than be uncomfortable because I did something that feels unjustifiable. I think that's doing a good job representing the community has a whole and I'm willing to take flak for it.
(In reply to comment #15) > Scott, > > The bottom line: > > I personally don't consider it appropriate to be using a significant chunk of > the community's charity pool to fund the on-going release engineering costs of > a single project. Fine. If this was going to be the approach, then in my view you probably shouldn't have ever done anything 'different' with FOE money...as compared with any/all the other money that goes into the EF. > > The modeling project is rife with small overburdened subprojects. I have no > doubt it's a pervasive problem beyond modeling. So I'm going to say no to all > such requests, because I'm going to have to say no to most of them anyway. I > refuse to be in the position of explaining to the ones to whom I say no, why I > say no to them, but not to the other guy. "Your project doesn't deserve it as > much." "You didn't ask for it first and we ran out of money." This is all completely irrelevant in my view. *None* of these other projects asked for FOE disbursement money for releng support for the simultaneous release participation (as far as I know...i.e. not publicly). I'm sure you are right that there are many projects that are overburdened...particularly with releng. I've never claimed (or will claim) otherwise. I consider that your/the Board's fault as much as anyone's. It certainly isn't the fault of the projects themselves. > > Imagine for a moment if I supported giving funding to AMP, Teneo, and CDO, but > said no to ECF. You'd have a cow or a canary, and rightly so. Perhaps you can > give me some reasons they'll consider a fair justification for why I should say > yes to ECF but no to them? Because ECF asked in response to a solicitation. > > In the end, I'd rather be uncomfortable hearing about all the legitimate > problems you bring up than be uncomfortable because I did something that feels > unjustifiable. I think that's doing a good job representing the community has > a whole and I'm willing to take flak for it. I disagree about doing a good job representing the committers, the projects, and their communities. The projects and their respective communities are suffering, the organization is shrinking and unhealthy, and the starvation and general struggling that is occurring WRT releng, simultaneous release, etc are just symptoms. Or maybe everything is great.
Some time ago I outlined the idea of a central promotion/download service: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=291637#c15 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=291637#c16 That would be something that all projects could equally benefit from and a consistent download/info discovery would also be great for all our users. What do you think, could that make a valid target for FOE funds?
(In reply to comment #17) > What do you think, could that make a valid target for FOE funds? Maybe - let's discuss it on a separate bug.
Scott, Regardless of your opinion, we will be doing something 'different" with the FOE money than is done with the rest of the revenue going to the foundation. I read this justification > *None* of these other projects > asked for FOE disbursement money for releng support for the simultaneous > release participation (as far as I know...i.e. not publicly). as semantically equivalent to "ECF asked first and we ran out of money." I won't be doing that because that's not looking after the interests of the whole community, that's oiling the loudest squeaky wheel. I'd make sure that all the other community members with the same needs were included. We might blame the release engineering problems on the poor quality technology being used and on the poor associated documentation. In that case, we might focus on improving that quality and documentation. That might well be a far better way to approach the problem than hiring the biggest affordable army of release engineers to serve specifically the most needy and deserving projects. Blaming the releng problem on me personally, and on the board of directors, while giving blanket absolution to the projects themselves strikes me as misguided. Some might reasonably argue that if each project had better coordinated their releng efforts and budgets with the hundreds of other projects doing the same thing, we'd not have this problem. But you will argue that it couldn't possibly be the fault of a project spending $1,500 on releng just for themselves? My past experience tells me that this was exactly the problem. While I used EMF's valuable releng resource to help as many projects as possible, the other projects did *nothing* but consume that help greedily while doing nothing in kind. So no, I don't give absolution to the projects themselves. We could all take a little more responsibility, including you. That would be far more effective than the time spent pointing the finger of blame away from yourself. I agree with one thing, the releng problem is just a symptom, and while we can treat ECF's symptoms, it won't fix the community's problem. The narrow focus on your project's symptoms is a symptom of how easily this problem perpetuates. Eike's suggestion is the way forward. Common spending for the good of the community as a whole. The problem to solve there is "who will do that work and how as a community will we prioritize those efforts"? That person or group needs to make a proposal.
(In reply to comment #19) > Scott, > > Regardless of your opinion, we will be doing something 'different" with the FOE > money than is done with the rest of the revenue going to the foundation. Mental accounting is a wonderful thing. But calling it 'different' doesn't make it different from the point of view of who matters: the committers, the projects, the communities that those projects develop for. > > I read this justification > > > *None* of these other projects > > asked for FOE disbursement money for releng support for the simultaneous > > release participation (as far as I know...i.e. not publicly). > > as semantically equivalent to "ECF asked first and we ran out of money." I > won't be doing that because that's not looking after the interests of the whole > community, that's oiling the loudest squeaky wheel. I'd make sure that all the > other community members with the same needs were included. Right. > > We might blame the release engineering problems on the poor quality technology > being used and on the poor associated documentation. In that case, we might > focus on improving that quality and documentation. That might well be a far > better way to approach the problem than hiring the biggest affordable army of > release engineers to serve specifically the most needy and deserving projects. Lot's of talk, Ed. > > Blaming the releng problem on me personally, and on the board of directors, > while giving blanket absolution to the projects themselves strikes me as > misguided. It can strike you however you like. BTW, I'm not blaming releng problems on you personally...that would be like blaming me for the projects not being able to collaborate effectively :). What I'm blaming on the Board and particularly the committer reps is the general, slow, ongoing degradation of support for all the projects...but particularly the smaller projects...IMHO the very essence of the Eclipse Foundation value creation. You and the other committer Board reps (along with the EMO, of course) have been in place on the Board during that degradation. It's not a technology problem, and it won't be solved by more/better technology (which is what all technical people like to believe). At root, IMHO, it's an organizational and policy problem. >Some might reasonably argue that if each project had better > coordinated their releng efforts and budgets with the hundreds of other > projects doing the same thing, we'd not have this problem. But you will argue > that it couldn't possibly be the fault of a project spending $1,500 on releng > just for themselves? My past experience tells me that this was exactly the > problem. While I used EMF's valuable releng resource to help as many projects > as possible, the other projects did *nothing* but consume that help greedily > while doing nothing in kind. So no, I don't give absolution to the projects > themselves. We could all take a little more responsibility, including you. What a lot of *XXXX*, Ed. Since before the beginning, I personally had/have been a *huge* advocate and participant for sharing resources among the projects...as well as cooperative interactions between the projects. To turn around responsibility for the situation the organization finds itself in (i.e. every project for themselves...leading to less and less ability to meet the requirements of something like the simultaneous release because of continuously diminishing resources), and point the finger at me (or any of the projects/committers) is more than I can stomach. Basically that's the approach of the Board (and the committer reps) when it comes to the projects: push off *every* responsibility back onto the projects...and blame very people that are the heart of the organization. AKA 'do more with less'. The EF and it's corporate membership is obviously very good at that. It's amazing and disheartening to me how people in positions of putative representation and 'leadership' are so readily able and willing to point the finger back at the very people they represent...e.g. 'it's *your* fault', 'it's everyone's fault'/'it's no one's fault'. Of course what's needed is not blaming, but rather change...away from what it was that got the organization to this point. But organizational change? That doesn't seem to likely to me any more...at least for the EF. Everyone's got too much invested in the way things work currently and actually changing would mean that people would have to admit that their theories for how to create/run a sustainable organization have been and are wrong. > That would be far more effective than the time spent pointing the finger of > blame away from yourself. Yeah, and I'm to blame for the state of the organization. With my blessing you can tell everyone that it's Scott's fault that all of the new, small, innovative projects at the Eclipse Foundation can't keep up...and then everyone can whisper to each other at the Board meetings how crappy the small project's releng and automated testing are...it's because they don't have any releng...it's being done by the project lead. So yeah...it's my fault Ed. I didn't personally do enough...that explains everything, and absolves you, the committer Board reps, the Board, the EMO, the EF and everyone for the degradation that has been occurring and continues to occur. If Scott and those other pesky people that care about the organization leaves to do open source elsewhere, all will be well with the EF once again. > > I agree with one thing, the releng problem is just a symptom, and while we can > treat ECF's symptoms, it won't fix the community's problem. The narrow focus on > your project's symptoms is a symptom of how easily this problem perpetuates. I don't happen to have a narrow focus on ECF's symptoms...it's just the ones I feel personally (as do you with EMF, Boris with e4, and Chris with PDE). But I'm no longer on the Board, and it's not my responsibility to represent anything but my own project any longer. And given the state of things at the EF, the heavyweightness of everything EF, representing my own project's interests occupies more time than I am willing and able to contribute. Especially when the organization's 'leaders' treat every organizational criticism as a personal attack, and respond with finger pointing, blame...whatever it takes to *silence* the criticism. And instead of wasting time arguing or trying to fix intractable organizational problems you can see clearly/publicly where my contributions have been going here: http://www.eclipse.org/projects/whatsnew.php > > Eike's suggestion is the way forward. Common spending for the good of the > community as a whole. The problem to solve there is "who will do that work and > how as a community will we prioritize those efforts"? That person or group > needs to make a proposal. And...because the dedicated, experienced committers (like myself, and like yourself), are too busy keeping their own projects alive rather than working for pennies in order to solve the entire organization's problems...what happens? Sounds like the tragedy of the commons again to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation See the last sentence of the Conclusion paragraph.
Scott, You may have noticed there was a financial crisis. During such a period, all discretionary spending comes under close scrutiny. Strategic membership in particular was scrutinized and when a few big-funding members dropped out, the impact on the foundation's funding was significant. I'm not sure whom we ought to blame for that. In the end, membership value is the important point on which to focus, it's after all the motivation for paying the membership dues. Suggesting that the existing members simply ought to pay more (for less?), doesn't go over nearly as well as one might hope. I'd like to suggest you stop using the term "corporate membership" in such a disparaging way. It's the corporate *non-members* who ought to attract your ire. The world is rife with freetards. I take exception to your distorting the suggestion that "we all take more responsibility" into yet another exercise of assigning blame. You do know the meaning of the word "we"? It's an inclusive word that I used to denote everyone involved (yes, me, the board, the rest of the community, and you), not to assign blame to a select group of scapegoats: the useless leaders, the corporate elite they represent, and everyone with an opinion different from mine. Your increasingly shrill demands for money for ECF, disguised as a noble attempt to improve the health of the Eclipse ecosystem, is shrouded behind an ugly tirade against all who disagree with you. You're clearly very angry and appear determined to stay that way. It's unlikely to lead to change for the better.
(In reply to comment #21) > Scott, > > You may have noticed there was a financial crisis. During such a period, all > discretionary spending comes under close scrutiny. Strategic membership in > particular was scrutinized and when a few big-funding members dropped out, the > impact on the foundation's funding was significant. I'm not sure whom we ought > to blame for that. In the end, membership value is the important point on which > to focus, it's after all the motivation for paying the membership dues. > Suggesting that the existing members simply ought to pay more (for less?), > doesn't go over nearly as well as one might hope. I'd like to suggest you stop > using the term "corporate membership" in such a disparaging way. >It's the > corporate *non-members* who ought to attract your ire. They attract my ire too. They are freeloaders. But much of the EF corporate membership are freeloaders too. That's why they attract my ire. >The world is rife with > freetards. I don't think the people that *contribute* for *nothing* are properly called freetards. That's insulting. Some people have a different model of value creation...and don't necessarily buy into the corporate model of control...but at least they create some value through software rather ride off the work of others. It's those that don't create anything (i.e. the freeloaders) that deserve disrespect, in my view. > > I take exception to your distorting the suggestion that "we all take more > responsibility" into yet another exercise of assigning blame. You do know the > meaning of the word "we"? It's an inclusive word that I used to denote > everyone involved (yes, me, the board, the rest of the community, and you), not > to assign blame to a select group of scapegoats: the useless leaders, the > corporate elite they represent, and everyone with an opinion different from > mine. Your increasingly shrill demands for money for ECF, disguised as a noble > attempt to improve the health of the Eclipse ecosystem, is shrouded behind an > ugly tirade against all who disagree with you. I'm sad to say this is just *XX* Ed. You can marginalize me and my criticisms if you wish (and you seem to wish to do so). And you can attempt to discredit me and my contributions, and you can call everything I say shrill and angry in an attempt to ignore the substance (i.e. diminish the messenger). It's just sad that this is apparently your mode of operation now...for you and this entire organization. Not what I would choose to call 'open'. Feel free to attack me some more for saying that...since that seems to be what you feel like doing with your time...rather than doing something about the org level problems we both see and have seen for some time (well before the crisis you refer to). But don't expect me to call that sort of representation a 'good job'...at representing the projects, and people you were elected to represent...because I won't. It isn't. If you choose to interpret that as angry then I can't do anything about that, except make it as clear as possible to as many people as possible that this is the way things work with the committer reps and the EF. > > You're clearly very angry and appear determined to stay that way. It's unlikely > to lead to change for the better. Thanks...that's very helpful for everyone. Keep up the good work...maybe your constituents will all go away angry...and then you won't have any more representational problems.
So much anger. So much shouting. Scott, You know that I support the plight of small projects and ECF is a really cool example of a functional independents-staffed project. There aren't many of those around. Having said that, I have to agree with the decision that committer reps have made with regards to this request. In my opinion, it is very inappropriate to use these funds to help any one specific project, however deserving. Reading through this thread, I see some support towards funding efforts to improve common build infrastructure. This would benefit all projects, particularly smaller ones such as ECF, but you dismiss it as an attempt to steal resources from ECF and proceed to attack committer reps, Eclipse Foundation and the Board. So what happened in the end? Zero dollars towards easing the overall releng burden. I don't think that the way you are conducting yourself helps the cause of small projects or ECF. Those who shout the loudest don't get their way. They get ignored. I honestly had a much higher opinion of you before reading this thread.
(In reply to comment #23) > So much anger. So much shouting. Who is shouting exactly? Yes, I'm being very critical, but I think this process and these representatives are doing a poor job...at representing the interests of the small/typically newer projects (as opposed to their own). This FOE disbursement process is but one example of that, IMHO. > > Scott, > > You know that I support the plight of small projects and ECF is a really cool > example of a functional independents-staffed project. There aren't many of > those around. Having said that, I have to agree with the decision that > committer reps have made with regards to this request. In my opinion, it is > very inappropriate to use these funds to help any one specific project, however > deserving. Reading through this thread, I see some support towards funding > efforts to improve common build infrastructure. This would benefit all > projects, particularly smaller ones such as ECF, but you dismiss it as an > attempt to steal resources from ECF and proceed to attack committer reps, > Eclipse Foundation and the Board. No I didn't dismiss it as an attempt to steal resources from ECF (please re-read previous comments). I think that to advertise the FOE as potentially providing support for project releng, explicitly ask for it in FOE disbursement request (this bug an 3 others), and then have the request denied by applying what appears to be ad hoc rules for disbursement (so far unarticulated) is a poor way to do things...as it ends up wasting everyone's time, doing exactly nothing for the projects that arguably need it most...i.e. smaller projects. The problem that I have with 'common build infrastructure' is that people have been working on 'common build infrastructure' for a long time now...with marginal improvement to show for it. And given the dollars involved for FOE, I doubt that this amount of money will be able to do much if anything for 'common build infrastructure'. >So what happened in the end? Zero dollars > towards easing the overall releng burden. That much is predictable...from the amount of dollars involved with FOE funds (trivial) and size of the overall releng burden (across all projects). So 'easing the overall releng burden' isn't likely to come from FOE disbursement's in my view. Others could use/reuse what we've done with (e.g.) creating Maven repos (along with p2 repos) for ECF, and/or us Markus' considerable expertise with ECF releng...as a gsoc student. e.g. see comment 7. > > I don't think that the way you are conducting yourself helps the cause of small > projects or ECF. The question is, what would help the cause of small projects (or ECF)? With our current committer reps, and the lack of representation of the interests of small projects at the Board level, in the PMCs, and in the councils (e.g. planning council), I sadly don't see anything helping (which admittedly is a big part of my frustration/anger). >Those who shout the loudest don't get their way. They get > ignored. Those that just say what everyone wants to hear (everyone's doing a great job representing the interests of all the projects, keeping the ecosystem alive, healthy, and innovative) aren't doing anyone a service either. >I honestly had a much higher opinion of you before reading this > thread. Ok your opinion of me is lower. I'm sorry to hear that. Now...would someone in a position to influence policy do something positive as opposed to dismissing the criticism and substance of what I'm saying because you perceive it as angry? Do people see the problems small projects are having? Do people see the degradation over time? Do people see the water level going up? Do you care? Is this a sustainable path for the org as a whole? If not, then why not expend more energy on *that*.
> Do people see the problems small projects are having? Do people see the > degradation over time? Do people see the water level going up? Do you care? > Is this a sustainable path for the org as a whole? If not, then why not expend > more energy on *that*. You seem to assume that people disagree with you on these issues. I don't see anything to suggest that. The disagreement is over how to tackle the problem. There is general reluctance to direct FoE funds towards something that would benefit a specific project. There is fundamental unfairness in that and I doubt that those who made financial contributions intended to have their money used in that fashion. Of course the amount of available funds isn't going to solve the entire common releng infrastructure deficiency, but we most certainly can tackle byte-sized portions, such as Eike's Comment #17. A fixed-size project that would benefit every single one of the projects (small projects more so) that is likely to be affordable with the resources that FoE program has at hand right now. Speaking of which, has a request for this been filed?
(In reply to comment #25) > [...] we most certainly can tackle byte-sized > portions, such as Eike's Comment #17. A fixed-size project that would benefit > every single one of the projects (small projects more so) that is likely to be > affordable with the resources that FoE program has at hand right now. Speaking > of which, has a request for this been filed? Not yet. The problem is that it seems only persons who want to actually take the money and do the work can apply for it. I had the idea but certainly can not do all the work. There might be a chance that I find a student here in Berlin who's happy to earn something and to be integrated into our Eclipse family. I'd be willing to spend time to mentor and review him. But before I start to create hopes I would like to get more concrete feedback on whether the whole idea/process is acceptable, so that I don't have to detroy these hopes later.
(In reply to comment #25) > > Do people see the problems small projects are having? Do people see the > > degradation over time? Do people see the water level going up? Do you care? > > Is this a sustainable path for the org as a whole? If not, then why not expend > > more energy on *that*. > > You seem to assume that people disagree with you on these issues. I don't see > anything to suggest that. The disagreement is over how to tackle the problem. I'm not assuming that people disagree with me about these issues. I just don't see anything being done about them even though they've been staring many people in the face for a long time. I accept you are right that there is disagreement over how to tackle the problem. But when disagreement leads to inaction/no change the disagreement make the problem intractable. > There is general reluctance to direct FoE funds towards something that would > benefit a specific project. There is fundamental unfairness in that and I doubt > that those who made financial contributions intended to have their money used > in that fashion. I don't deny a general reluctance to direct FoE funds toward benefiting (aka supporting) a specific project. I would go further...I would say there's a general reluctance to have any shared support be provided to the projects at all. The projects are, IMHO, far too like individual silos. I think this is dysfunctional in a world where this org finds itself: 1) In great need of the innovation and value creation that comes from new, small, innovative, cross-organizational/diverse projects 2) With a process and tradition that's heavily geared toward large infrastructure projects (i.e. Eclipse platform) and toward project independence (as oppose to cross-project collaboration). 3) Resources being continuously reduced for both large and small projects I admit I don't know how to address this problem, but I do think it's a problem, since much of the benefit of being in an open community-based organization is not realized under these conditions. > > Of course the amount of available funds isn't going to solve the entire common > releng infrastructure deficiency, but we most certainly can tackle byte-sized > portions, such as Eike's Comment #17. A fixed-size project that would benefit > every single one of the projects (small projects more so) Really? Although I don't have any objections to Eike's ideas, I'm not sure that I get how it will benefit small projects more than larger projects. IMHO that's a problem with infrastructure spending in general...it's consumption-based...i.e. if you are a large project (code size, # of committers, size of community), you naturally consume more infrastructure, and so get more benefit.
> Really? Although I don't have any objections to Eike's ideas, I'm not sure > that I get how it will benefit small projects more than larger projects. Larger projects have dedicated or semi-dedicated releng resources and expertise to setup cron jobs, massage scripts to generate downloads pages, etc. Smaller projects struggle with this, as they do with other releng activities. Eike's proposal would benefit all projects, but has greater value for small projects.
It is obvious that the FoE disbursement procedures are bound to fail to satisfy all needs. Thus why not leave the decision up to the donators as proposed on bug #313479? Fair and square!
(In reply to comment #29) > It is obvious that the FoE disbursement procedures are bound to fail to satisfy > all needs. Thus why not leave the decision up to the donators as proposed on > bug #313479? Fair and square! Please see new FOE disbursement bug 339239
Ed, Scott, I've had the lucky fortune of working at the same organization as both of you throughout my career, and you both served as a mentor to me during those times. It's because of that I feel the need to respond. AFAIK, neither one of you works (directly) for a member company at the moment, and you are among the most passionate Eclipse developers we have in our community. It's that passion that shines through in this conversation. It's that dedication that I don't want to lose. While I don't think we should allocate funding to a single project to help support release engineering efforts, I think there is a general problem here. Ed mentioned several small modeling projects (Teno, CDO, etc... ) that would benefit from releng support. I'm sure there are a lot of other projects out there in the same boat. I imagine that if several member companies approached the board and requested that their funds be used to help alleviate the pain points, that request would be seriously considered. Maybe that's what needs to happen here. But how? I actually think there is a systemic issue here: Who represents the interests of the 'committer only members' -- those committers who do not work for any member company. In principle the answer is 'the committer reps', but the majority of them work for member companies. Looking through the committers who make up the councils and the PMC, I see a similar trend. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the current committer reps, but they represent all committers, not just the ones without corporate sponsorship. We could easily pass the buck and say the 'committer only members' should get their act together and fix this, but I believe we will need dedicated support from the EF to make any headway here. Maybe this funding request should be examined in a different light: use the FoE funding to support the release engineering for projects that have no corporate leadership. I doubt the amount of money in the FoE pot will cover this, but there are several (member) organizations who specialize in release engineering activities -- maybe they could be leveraged.
> I actually think there is a systemic issue here: Who represents the interests > of the 'committer only members' -- those committers who do not work for any > member company. In principle the answer is 'the committer reps', but the > majority of them work for member companies. Looking through the committers > who make up the councils and the PMC, I see a similar trend. Don't get me > wrong, I have no problem with the current committer reps, but they represent > all committers, not just the ones without corporate sponsorship. We could > easily pass the buck and say the 'committer only members' should get their > act together and fix this, but I believe we will need dedicated support from > the EF to make any headway here. The way the committer rep elections are performed, all votes from committers of a given member company are consolidated into a single vote. So 1 vote for all IBM committers, 1 vote for all Oracle committers, etc. On the other hand, each individual independent committer is a separate EF member. They each get a vote. As you can see, independent committers hold a lot more influence than corporate members in committer reps elections. If independent committers truly felt that they were not represented by the committer reps, they could easily overpower corporate member votes and elect a slate of reps more favorable to their views. The are only two possible reasons for why this revolution has not happened: 1. The independent committers are generally happy with the representation of their interest by the current crop of committer reps. 2. Many of the independent committers don't bother to vote.
(In reply to comment #32) <stuff deleted> > The are only two possible reasons for why this revolution has not happened: > > 1. The independent committers are generally happy with the representation of > their interest by the current crop of committer reps. > > 2. Many of the independent committers don't bother to vote. 3. Lots of independent committers don't know what the committer reps (or the Board) do/does that's relevant to their project, and so don't see a connection between voting for their reps and leading/contributing to their project. I'm not saying this is anyone's fault, I just suspect it's happening to some degree. 4. Some mixture of all of these
I'll admit that I haven't reviewed all of the comments here, but I'd like to echo what Ian has said, and put in a plea for help with 'unaffiliated' projects in general. I have been and continue to be the only "release engineer" for my project. Builds are a *huge* issue with Eclipse. They are the most challenging and frustrating task I've faced as a software engineer. (And students should know about the hard side of things so they have a good idea of what they're getting into.) I've literally spent months -- many many late nights away from my family and doing things that I'd much rather be doing instead -- working on build issues, and I'm still not happy with what I have. A lot of that is because of my own hack tendencies. ;) I know of many projects that are in the same situation -- I'm doing my best to help GEF3D and I know that that project isn't the only one who's participation in release trains has been prevented by simply not being able to get a decent build going. It may be petty, but I have to say that I would be PO'd in a huge way if a project got favored treatment at this point from community money. I don't care how popular or useful they are. :) But that's not what is needed. If we step back from the precipice here, the simplest thing to do would be to spend any money that's available for the benefit of all Eclipse projects that don't have resources to do this stuff on their own -- incidentally supporting all Eclipse projects in general. How could we do that? One of the major things that is wrong with the build process is that there isn't one single clear way to do things -- and customizing yet another project level solution isn't going to accomplish much. What would help immensely would be to support ongoing efforts to rationalize and generalize the process. Another major help would be to have someone on hand who had dedicated time to mentor projects and work through difficult build configuration issues with them. If the community is interested in helping sort out the build issues, I think that's a great idea, but let' have it be spent in benefit of all projects.
(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > What do you think, could that make a valid target for FOE funds? > > Maybe - let's discuss it on a separate bug. Done: bug 339472 ;-)
