Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Architecture Council/Meetings/March 9 2017
|Meeting Title:||Architecture Council Monthly Meeting|
|Date & Time:|| Thursday March 9, 2017 at 1100 Ottawa |
HTML | iCal
- In attendance: Carl Anderson, Mickael Barbero, Wayne Beaton, Marcel Bruch, Christian Campo, Jonas Helming, Jim Hughes, Mickael Istria, Maximilian Kögel, Marc-Andre Laperle, Martin Lippert, Dani Megert, Alexander Nyßen, Martin O, Denis Roy, Doug Schaefer, Julien Vermillard, Gunnar Wagenknecht, Tom Watson
- Regrets: Jay Jay Billings, Mike Wilson, Pascal Rapicault, Krum Tsvetkov,
- No-Show: Max Andersen, Chris Aniszczyk, John Arthorne, Nick Boldt, Cédric Brun, Ian Bull, Benjamin Cabé, Linda Chan, Naci Dai, Sebastien Gerard, Neil Hauge, Kenn Hussey, Tyler Jewell, Markus Knauer, Konstantin Kommissarchik, Alex Kurtakov, Benoit Langlois, Ed Merks, Mike Milinkovich, Adrian Mos, Steffen Pingel, Tom Schindl, Matthias Sohn, Eike Stepper, Lars Vogel
#PMC_Rep_Attendees see also below.
Agenda / Notes
- Feel free to edit, but not during the call!
- Last meeting: Architecture Council/Meetings/February 9 2017 -- open actions see #Action_Items
- New Members - Wayne to nominate 1 or 2 more candidates from locationtech; Jonas to nominate one
- Since Locationtech people are not so known to the current AC, might not get so many +1s
- Consider changing voting procedures to require fewer than 50% of the active +1
- RESOLUTION proceed with the nominations now, reconsider next month
- Marcel - Marketplace: All Solution Providers got an invitation to use the AERI for own plugins
- Account moderation had been enabled
- Thanks to collaboration with GNOME community, one of their spam prevention plugins could be installed
- Deployed on Polarsys and Eclipse bugzilla - working great so far
- Bugzilla version is old, but upgrading needs service upgrades too (planned for the summer)
- 7 new servers deployed, 4 more to deploy in the coming weeks (in order to regain stability)
- Struggling to find mentors
- Marcel: Don't see questions from mentored projects, so unsure about the benefit of mentoring
- Wayne: Some projects violate Eclipse principles; Foundation is improving communication to alleviate this, but is it enough?
- Jonas: When Eclipse opened up to IoT, Locationtech ... domains are unknown to many old-timers;
- bring in more people to the AC? Or form a new (less formal) group of possible mentors, other than AC
- Projects which have been in the ecosystem since 1 year or so might be more willing to mentor other newcomers
- Jim: Been mentoring Locationtech, but the Locationtech Community is really disjoint with AC
- AI Wayne create 2 Bugzilla's for discussion ("advice for mentors", and "changing the definition of the mentor pool"
- There might be an option for refocusing the AC, to be discussed separately
- Wayne has been given the keys to upload Polarsys and Locationtech; keys are available for anyone who wants to experiment with this
- Che started doing some work with this
- Not an official EF distribution channel yet, thus not imposing IP policy rules as of today ("let it happen for a while")
- A bug is open for discussing the process
- Jim: For Geomesa this has been very useful; Quaid is also looking at it; more lightweight process for distributing complete systems is very appreciated
- Jim: In terms of pattern and practice, make it clear how to build a docker image (then it becomes clear what went into it)
- We have a few bugs open regarding security policy (Bug 510142 is an umbrella)
- Consider alternative channels for projects to use, but don't want too many ... channels need to be private
- Github currently doesn't have a mechanism for private communication
- Right now there are 2 entrypoints -- Bugzilla, and Mailinglist Bug 509103
- Jim: Dealing with security issues in downstream libs -- need to raise a CQ for upversioning dependent libs
- Process is very heavy, could this be expedited in the IP process?
- Wayne: PMCs need to react timely; when the IP team is told about urgency, they should be able to expedite
- Wayne: There was a board resolution that "pure bug fix service release of third-party content don't need a new IP Review, no CQ process"
- If any functionality / APIs are added, we're back to the normal process; but for pure bugfixes, no CQ is needed
- This was discussed in the Board in June 2015
- If CQ list gets out-of-sync with the actual libs, Wayne has tooling to consolidate; for final contents in a Simrel, creating a CQ might still make sense ... but not for milestones in-between
- Dani and Martin think that minimal tracking in a CQ would help just to document that a security issue is resolved
- Wayne: Hybrid approach - could use a lib right away and have CQ entered for tracking in parallel ... don't do unnecessary work. Projects can have their own policy.
- Mikael: Documenting the ability to not have a CQ might actually introduce more complexity than the uniform and consistent approach we have now...
- Dani: How to validate it's really just a bugfix and doesn't violate any IP? - Wayne: Would be the committer's duty to review
- RESOLUTION: If unsure, talk to the IP team and create a CQ for discussion. Leave it to a committer to decide if it's just a bugfix and thus a CQ is needed or not.
Devoxx US / EclipseCon NA
- AI Maximilian Quick poll on the mailing list for a F2F meeting
PMC Rep Attendees
All AC Members are invited.
- PMC Reps please confirm attendance or list your delegate below. Every PMC is required to name a primary and backup delegate, and to ensure that one delegate attends the meeting.
|Eclipse:||Dani Megert|| |
|RT:||Christian Campo||Tom Watson|
|Technology:||Gunnar Wagenknecht||Wayne Beaton|
|Tools:||Doug Schaefer|| |
|WTP:||Carl Anderson|| |