Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Project Management Infrastructure Redesign 2011"

(Publish an unpublished Proposal: EMO(ED))
(Elect a Committer)
Line 168: Line 168:
 
** Active Date
 
** Active Date
 
** Committer relationships remain inactive until approved by EMO(IP) and Webmaster (indicating that the necessary paperwork/information has been recorded and the corresponding backend configuration has occurred).
 
** Committer relationships remain inactive until approved by EMO(IP) and Webmaster (indicating that the necessary paperwork/information has been recorded and the corresponding backend configuration has occurred).
 +
 +
==Release==
 +
* A project can schedule any number of releases.
 +
* An attempt to schedule a release with less than one month lead time results in a stern warning
 +
** Releases should be scheduled well in advance of the actual event itself.
 +
** Need to give the community reasonable time to participate in the release.
 +
* Release record includes fields to concisely track:
 +
** New features included in the release
 +
** Changes, additions, and deletions of APIs
 +
** Architectural Issues
 +
** Non-Code Aspects
 +
** Security Issues
 +
** Usability
 +
** End-of-Life
 +
** Standards
 +
** Schedule
 +
** Communities
 +
** IP Issues
 +
* Additional values tracked:
 +
** Date of the release
 +
** Version name (e.g 1.0.1)
 +
** Download links
 +
** p2 repository links
 +
** SCM Tags
 +
** Field to track the Bugzilla milestones associated with the release
 +
* Fields can be filled out during the release
 +
** Projects are encouraged to fill out as much as possible as early as possible and keep information up-to-date
  
 
=Proposal Use Cases=
 
=Proposal Use Cases=

Revision as of 14:57, 9 September 2011

This effort is being tracked by Bug 243223.

Problem Statement

Current infrastructure (i.e. The Developer Portal) is inadequate.

Multiple, separate data sources.

Portal is separate from the the resources being managed. Requires a context switch to use. Most committers have difficulty (or outright refuse) to make that context switch.

Some management tasks are spread out. Specifying a description for a project, for example, requires that an HTML file be created in the project directory (requires CVS check-in), and then the specification of a URL in the portal. Very difficult to maintain. Very separated from where and how the description is used. As a result, descriptions tend to be poorly specified, and maintained.

Too much information is not included in or managed by the portal. Project proposals, review documentation, IP logs, are all separate.

Technology Choices

Project management is essentially a document-management and workflow problem. Several solutions exist in this area.

The Eclipse Foundation currently uses Drupal for Eclipse Marketplace, Eclipse Live, and the EclipseCon Website. Several Eclipse Foundation employees are already well-versed in Drupal development, and finding temporary resources with the necessary skills in the local area should be relatively easy and cost-effective. Drupal is based on PHP, a language that is known to most of the Eclipse Foundation staff, and is currently in wide deployment by the Eclipse Foundation.

Perhaps one of the features that weighs most heavily in Drupal's favour is the size of the community behind it (which measures in the hundreds of thousands) and the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of plugins that are available to extend it. The availability of plugins, combined with the relative ease with which Drupal can be extended means that the overall amount of custom code that needs to be maintained should be relatively small (as compared to other solutions that may require more customization).

There are several other options that have been considered, including a handful of Eclipse-based solutions (which would allow us to "eat our own dogfood"). After careful consideration, however, we have determined that we do not have the resources to implement these solutions.

Technology comparison
  Pros Cons
Drupal
  • Skilled resources within existing Eclipse Foundation staff
  • Large number of skilled resources available
  • Very large community of developers, adopters, and users.
  • Deployed by 1,000s of organizations
  • Hundreds of plug-ins available to leverage in favour of writing custom code
    • Integration with Facebook, Twitter, etc.
    • Access information via RESTful webservices
  • Build-in (no-brainer) database support
  • Integrated Development tools + Eclipse/PDT
  • Existing IT Infrastructure support
  • Drupal-specific data structures and formats.
  • Not dogfooding; perception in the community
Skalli
  • Java based: Some Java skills on staff
  • "Dogfooding" solution
  • Eclipse-based development tools available
  • Leverage existing Eclipse technologies (EMF, workflow projects, SOA, EclipseLink, etc.)
  • Project developers have expressed interest in implementing some Eclipse Foundation processes (though with no specific commitments)
  • Opportunity to fully control the database structure
  • New project, very small community
  • Limited availability of skilled resources
    • Ramp up time for new developers is relatively long.
    • Good quality Java-savvy developers are relatively difficult to find.
    • Virtually impossible to find developers familiar with Skalli itself
  • Integration opportunities with existing Eclipse technologies remain largely unexplored
  • No existing IT Infrastructure support
Apricot
  • Java based: Some Java skills on staff
  • "Dogfooding" solution
  • High-quality, established project with several high-volume consumers
  • Eclipse-based development tools available
  • Leverage existing Eclipse technologies (EMF, workflow projects, SOA, EclipseLink, etc.)
  • Community size is unknown
  • Unknown availability of skilled resources
    • Assumed to be no skilled Apricot developers available in the local area.
    • Ramp up time for new developers is relatively long.
    • Good quality Java-savvy developers are relatively difficult to find.
  • Availability and usefulness of extensions is unknown
  • No existing IT Infrastructure support

Roles

  • EMO(ED) - EMO Executive Directory (i.e. Mike)
  • EMO(PM) - EMO Project Manager (i.e. Wayne)
  • EMO(LC) - EMO Legal Council (i.e. Janet)
  • EMO(IP) - EMO Intellectual Property Team
  • Proposer
  • Committer

Communication Channels

The communication channels used by the system are expected to change with time as technologies and communities evolve. Favoured technologies of the day are Twitter, RSS, and the eclipse.proposals forum.

Technology

LDAP authentication

  • All user information stored in LDAP

Core Requirements

  • New Project Proposal
  • Proposal becomes a Project
  • Elect a Committer
  • Project Release

New Project Proposal

  • Any authenticated user can create a proposal.
  • The proposal must contain:
    • Project name, id, parent project;
    • Rich text description (single paragraph);
    • Rich text scope (single paragraph);
    • Rich text detailed description (multiple paragraph, bullets, images, etc.);
    • Rich text "Why Eclipse?" discussion;
    • Rich text "Initial Contribution" discussion;
    • List of initial committers (name, optional affiliation, email address); and
    • Rich text discussion of legal isues.
  • All revisions to the document are tracked.
  • Only the proposer and EMO(PM) can edit the proposal.
  • Proposal is made public only after it has been approved by the proposer, corresponding PMC, EMO(PM), EMO(ED).
  • Prior to being made public, the proposal document is only accessible to the proposer, corresponding PMC, the EMO(ED), and EMO(PM).
  • Public proposals are listed on the main page.
  • Any authenticated user can add themselves as an interested party (either as an individual, or as representative of an organization)
  • At any point in time, the EMO(PM) can review the collection of pending project proposals with the power to modify or remove.

Project Creation

  • The project proposer can request a creation review:
    • After a minimum of two weeks;
    • Only if all the committers indicated in the proposal have user accounts
  • Creation review starts with the approval of the EMO(PM).
  • The proposal document cannot be modified during the creation review period (the EMO(PM) can make changes in exceptional circumstances).
  • Creation review runs for a week.
  • Creation reviews are listed on the main page.
  • Creation review declared successful with approval of the EMO(PM).

Proposal Becomes a Project

  • New project is created
  • Some information copied from the proposal
    • Id, short/long name
    • Description
    • Scope
  • Committer/Project Lead/Mentor relationships captured
    • Project id
    • User id
    • Active Date
    • Committer relationships remain inactive until approved by EMO(IP) and Webmaster (indicating that the necessary paperwork/information has been recorded and the corresponding backend configuration has occurred).
  • A project retains linkage to the proposal.
  • A project is made active when approved by the EMO(PM), Webmaster, and EMO(IP)
  • Project's Active Date is recorded

Other

  • A project's metadata can be edited by the project lead, or any active project committer.
  • Any change to project metadata is tracked (including the date of the change and the identity of the individual who made the change).
  • Project id and scope cannot be edited

Elect a Committer

  • Nominee must be a registered user
  • Any project committer, or project lead can nominate a committer.
  • Committer election is successful if:
    • All existing committers vote +1
    • A minimum of three committers vote +1, no committers vote -1, and a week of generally-accepted business days have passed.
  • PMC must approve the vote
  • Committer relationship captured
    • Project id
    • User id
    • Active Date
    • Committer relationships remain inactive until approved by EMO(IP) and Webmaster (indicating that the necessary paperwork/information has been recorded and the corresponding backend configuration has occurred).

Release

  • A project can schedule any number of releases.
  • An attempt to schedule a release with less than one month lead time results in a stern warning
    • Releases should be scheduled well in advance of the actual event itself.
    • Need to give the community reasonable time to participate in the release.
  • Release record includes fields to concisely track:
    • New features included in the release
    • Changes, additions, and deletions of APIs
    • Architectural Issues
    • Non-Code Aspects
    • Security Issues
    • Usability
    • End-of-Life
    • Standards
    • Schedule
    • Communities
    • IP Issues
  • Additional values tracked:
    • Date of the release
    • Version name (e.g 1.0.1)
    • Download links
    • p2 repository links
    • SCM Tags
    • Field to track the Bugzilla milestones associated with the release
  • Fields can be filled out during the release
    • Projects are encouraged to fill out as much as possible as early as possible and keep information up-to-date

Proposal Use Cases

Authenticated User creates a Project Proposal

  • User logs in
  • User clicks "Propose a project"
  • User is presented with new "project proposal form"
    • Provides proposal information (short name, long name, parent project, description, scope, etc.)
  • User clicks "Save"

Authenticated User Modifies an unpublished Proposal

  • Proposer User logs in
  • User clicks "Browse work items"
  • User is presented with a list of proposals they created.
  • User identifies project proposal and clicks corresponding "edit" link
  • Information is modified
  • User clicks "Save"
  • A record of the change (including date/time stamp and the identity of the user) is stored along with the modified information

Publish an unpublished Proposal: Proposer

  • Proposer User logs in
  • User clicks "Browse work items"
  • User is presented with a list of proposals they created.
  • User identifies project proposal and clicks corresponding "view" link
  • User clicks "Approve"
  • Corresponding PMC is informed of the proposal (via email) requesting their approval.

Publish an unpublished Proposal: PMC

  • PMC User logs in
  • User clicks "Browse work items"
  • User is presented with a list of proposals
  • User identifies project proposal labelled "Awaiting PMC Approval" and clicks corresponding "view" link
    • Label reflects state implied by proposer approval
  • User reviews the contents, optionally provides comments, and clicks "Approve"
  • Proposer is informed (via email) of the PMC approval.
  • EMO(PM) is informed (via email) requesting their approval.

Publish an unpublished Proposal: EMO(PM)

  • EMO(PM) User logs in
  • User clicks "Browse work items"
  • User is presented with a list of proposals
  • User identifies project proposal labelled "Awaiting EMO(ED) Approval" and clicks corresponding "view" link
    • Label reflects state that is implied by proposer and PMC approval
  • User reviews the contents, optionally provides comments, and clicks "Approve"
  • Proposer and PMC are infomred (via email) of the EMO(PM) approval.
  • EMO(ED) is informed (via email) requesting their approval.

Publish an unpublished Proposal: EMO(ED)

  • EMO(ED) User logs in
  • User navigates to "Projects" landing page
  • User identifies project proposal labelled "Awaiting EMO(ED) Approval" in "Action Items" section and clicks corresponding "view" link
    • Label reflects state that is implied by proposer, PMC, and EMO(PM) approval
  • User reviews the contents, optionally provides comments, and clicks "Approve"
  • Proposer, PMC, and EMO(PM) are informed (via email) of the EMO(ED) approval.
  • EMO(ED) is informed (via email) requesting their approval.

Authenticated user comments on Proposal

  • User logs in
  • User navigates to "Projects" landing page
  • User identifies project proposal in "Proposals" section, and clicks corresponding "view" link
  • User enters comments in provided text field.
  • User clicks "Save"
  • Proposer is informed (via email) of the comment and invited to reply

References and Links