Community
Participate
Working Groups
The Eclipse project charter hasn't been updated in ten years. Several elements of the charter are out of date, including the list of sub-projects and components. With the introduction of Orion it seems like a good time to revise this. http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/eclipse-charter.php
For background context, see Mike M's note on the Orion project proposal: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/orion-dev/msg00395.html
The standard charter template is here: http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/Eclipse_Standard_TopLevel_Charter_v1.1.php
Created attachment 193056 [details] Charter patch Here is an initial attempt at updating the charter. It contains the following changes: 1) In the "Mission" section, there are a few places where the general word "Eclipse" is used to refer to the Eclipse Project's tool platform. Since "Eclipse" now means far more than this, I have updated the wording. For example, "Eclipse is a kind of universal tool platform" becomes "The Eclipse Project provides a kind of universal tool platform". 2) The Scope section has been completely rewritten. This was previously an exhaustive list of sub-projects and components circa 2001. Since changing the charter is a rare and heavy-weight process, I have avoided listing any particular sub-projects at all. From looking at other top-level project charters this seems to be the norm. 3) Changed all occurrences of the word "newsgroup" to "forum" (to match the new principle interface at eclipse.org/forums). 4) Remove specific mention of CVS. There was only one occurrence of the word. "One or more CVS repositories" became "One or more source code repositories..."
I have two other proposed changes, but wanted some feedback on them first. - There is a section entitled "Ports", that talks about defining Port Components, Port Leads, etc. This is mainly with SWT in mind, but I think it no longer matches our practices. I suggest just removing this section entirely. - A question for Wayne/Mike M: There is a reference to the "Eclipse Foundation Architectural Roadmap". Is the Roadmap eliminated along with the Requirements Council in the proposed Foundation bylaw updates? If so, is there something to replace this? Here is the relevant section, from the list of PMC responsibilities: "Providing the leadership and vision to guide the Project's overall direction in a manner consistent with the Eclipse Foundation Architectural Roadmap."
(In reply to comment #4) > I have two other proposed changes, but wanted some feedback on them first. > > - There is a section entitled "Ports", that talks about defining Port > Components, Port Leads, etc. This is mainly with SWT in mind, but I think it > no longer matches our practices. I suggest just removing this section > entirely. +1. I don't see why we should have different rules than for normal/other code.
(In reply to comment #4) > - A question for Wayne/Mike M: There is a reference to the "Eclipse Foundation > Architectural Roadmap". Is the Roadmap eliminated along with the Requirements > Council in the proposed Foundation bylaw updates? If so, is there something to > replace this? Here is the relevant section, from the list of PMC > responsibilities: > > "Providing the leadership and vision to guide the Project's overall direction > in a manner consistent with the Eclipse Foundation Architectural Roadmap." I would recommend changing this to say: "Providing the leadership and vision to guide the Project's overall direction in a manner consistent with the Eclipse Development Process."
Created attachment 194206 [details] Charter patch v2 Two further changes (as mentioned above): - Removed the section on "Ports" entirely - Updated the paragraph that references the roadmap: Old text: <li>Providing the leadership and vision to guide the Project's overall direction in a manner consistent with the Eclipse Foundation Architectural Roadmap.</li> Proposed new text: <li>Providing the leadership and vision to guide the Project's overall direction and architecture.</li> Mike M suggested replacing this with a statement about conforming to the development process. I think that point is covered elsewhere in the charter, and this statement is really about responsibility for overall architecture.
Looks good. +1
much better. +1.
All changes mentioned here look good to me. Compared to the standard toplevel charter referenced by Wayne, the responsibilities of the PMC seem to be elaborated much more than in the standard. I'm wondering whether that amount of elaboration is necessary and helpful? Given that over-specification is to be handled with care, and that adopting common standards is typically a good thing, I'd like to see a draft copy of the proposed Eclipse Platform Charter (with patch applied) and how it diffs against the standard toplevel charter template.
Looks good to me. +1.
(In reply to comment #10) > Given that over-specification is to be handled with care, and that adopting > common standards is typically a good thing, I'd like to see a draft copy of the > proposed Eclipse Platform Charter (with patch applied) and how it diffs against > the standard toplevel charter template. The standard charter template says almost nothing about the responsibilities of PMC members. Essentially "subscribe to the mailing lists" is the only concrete responsibility it lays out. This might be reasonable for the standard template since PMC responsibilities vary widely across different projects. Perhaps for other PMCs this is sufficient because individual project leads take on responsibility for their area. Our charter does go into a lot of detail about PMC responsibilities. However reading through the list, I don't see anything listed there that I disagree with. Unless there are specific things you want to remove, I suggest leaving it. I find it a helpful reminder of the kinds of things we should be doing.
Dani, these changes alone might not be worth the effort, but if there are other charter changes coming it would be easy enough to incorporate them. Changing the top-level project charter requires a vote on the Eclipse board of directors, but I expect this sort of change would be passed easily.
I do realize that this is basically housekeeping, but I would certainly love to get Eclipse's charter updated, and re-based on the standard template.
I started to look at this and then discovered that John already made all the above changes when he added the Orion 0.4 release review with http://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/eclipse.git/commit/?id=524c1883ea27c1000a6866f1e0d234f3c4de7bd9
Charter changes require board approval. Mike, what do we need to take this to the board? Should the title include the word "Charter" ?
(In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #16) > Charter changes require board approval. > > Mike, what do we need to take this to the board? > > Should the title include the word "Charter" ? Just for the record: this was mostly a clean up and has been done almost 4 years ago (March 2012).
I assume this has been done.
