Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Architecture Council/Meetings/Meeting Notes"

(June 11, 2020)
(June 11, 2020)
Line 21: Line 21:
 
==== June 11, 2020 ====
 
==== June 11, 2020 ====
  
(Michael: Maybe we need a summary of that meeting -- I just tried to capture what has been said)
+
* EMO Update
 +
** Reminding projects that a release review required only once per year; starting to push back on projects requesting too often
 +
** Working on a better communication strategy
 +
** Reminder that piggyback are not used anymore
  
===== Participants =====
+
* General discussion about the IP tools
 +
** Goal: reduced engagement with IP team
 +
** Clearly Defined is used to just extract license info
 +
** Tool to automate as much as possible
 +
** The project handbook needs an update; it doesn't mention the IP tool currently
 +
** Projects should capture the output of the tool and version it
 +
** PMCs should help with educating projects
  
 +
* PMC voting discussion - is it a mandatory thing?
 +
** IP team needs to know it makes sense
 +
** PMC can discuss on the CQ, but as soon as someone adds a +1 they jump in and consider it consent, i.e. just one PMC vote is sufficient
 +
** There are some problems with IPzilla; occasionally +1 does not trigger the process correclty
 +
** Kai asked if we canagree that if any of the PMC hits OK then it is OK
 +
** Wayne replied that one member can approve it, if he can do it with confidence then it is OK
 +
** In the past more formal voting was required; this is no longer required. This change was not communicated properly.
 +
** With a growing base of projects it becomes harder from PMC to be aware of all codebases
 +
*** we as PMC trust project leads
 +
** We need the PMC to clarify if it is a "works with"
 +
** Also, only if the content requires further review a CQ has to be created
  
* Gunnar  Wagenknecht
+
* Should the IP run the tool instead of committers?
* Martin Lippert
+
** Concern that this is a lot more work for a small team
* Jonah Graham
+
** IP team running the tool assumes the IP team understands the project structure and all technologies
* Kai Hudalla
+
** Thus, it makes more sense that this work has to be done by the projects
* Wayne Beaton
+
* Mikael Barbero
+
* Alexander Kurakov
+
* Jeff Jhonston
+
* Dani Megert
+
* Dimitry Kornilov
+
* Torkind
+
* Jay Jay Billings
+
* Michael Scharf
+
  
===== IP =====
+
* Latency between new released and updates in IP database
 
+
** spring new miner version every few months; still have to create CQs
 
+
** Wayne: we need it **only* on releases; forget intermediate version
* Wane:
+
** change: release review only required once a year
+
** IP policy changes
+
** how to document the changes
+
** works out better communication strategy
+
** no more piggyback use
+
** 3rd party license
+
** no type b due diligence
+
** "clearly defined" (CD) has license information
+
** reduced engagement with IP team
+
* Kai:
+
** clearly defined is hard to use
+
* Wane:
+
** hard to put numbers on things
+
** use CD to just extract license info
+
** tool to automate as much as possible
+
** struggling how to capture this (how to use CD data)
+
* Kai:
+
** unclear how to use it
+
** no pointe in project handbook t the tool
+
* Wane
+
** use the tool to capture the intent of the IP policy changes
+
* ALexander
+
** can I use the tool
+
* Gunnar
+
** should the project capture the output of the tool?
+
* Wane
+
** good idea!
+
** add dependency file with the output of the tool
+
** IP log used for tracking -* we are no longer tracking
+
* Kai:
+
** is it a good tool for tracking
+
** want to see who is affected
+
* Wane
+
** tries to put documentation about the tool
+
** Gunar
+
** can PMCs help
+
* Wane
+
** once we have proper doc PMC can help out
+
* Kai:
+
** as soon as anybody casts a vote in the PMC the IP team considers this consent?
+
** have not seen any CQ be not approved
+
* Wane:
+
** IP team needs to know it makes sense
+
** PMC can discuss on the CQ, but as soon as someone adds a +1 they jump in
+
* Gunnar:
+
** occasionally +1 does not work
+
**, therefore, we use in in the comments
+
* Wane
+
** there are some problems with the tool
+
* Kai
+
** can we agree that if any of the PMC hits OK then it is OK
+
* Wane
+
** one member can approve it, if he can do it with confidence then it is OK
+
** no "yes but.."
+
* Gunnar
+
** technology we operate like this
+
* Kai
+
** we were told to have a vote
+
* Wane
+
** was true at one time when it was far more formal
+
** change was not communicated
+
** I need confidence that it meets the definition
+
* Torkind
+
** Science does it similar to technology
+
* Gunnar
+
** with a growing base of projects it becomes harder to be aware of all codebases
+
** challenge: we as PMC trust project leads -* it is not always easy
+
** "works with" is one part
+
** I want separation
+
* Kai:
+
** do we have knowledge about build dependencies
+
* Wane
+
** would agree but layers don't
+
** "works with" for testing JUnit -* who cares?
+
** OS under apache -* chances are we have already information
+
* Kai:
+
** how to you know it is a "works with"?
+
* Wane
+
** some people use "works with" as a workaround
+
* Kai
+
** why don't do we need CQs for 3rd party?
+
* Wane
+
** ideally we run the tool 700 are fine and 3 have no license
+
** IP team says OK if it is a "works with"
+
** the more complete the coverage is the less engagement with IP team we need
+
** we could start doing this now
+
* Kai
+
** I want the IP team come to PMC and ask if it is a prereq of a "works with"
+
** should be the standard way
+
** Only in the few cases the IP team should  ask
+
** just approve any works with
+
* Wane
+
** We need the PMC to clarify if it is a "works with"
+
* Wane
+
** only if the content requires further review a CQ has to be created
+
* Kai
+
** should the committer or the IP team run the tool?
+
* Wane
+
** my team doing more work
+
* Kai
+
** not sure
+
* Wane
+
** ideally, the tool could automatically figure it out
+
* Gunnar
+
** IP team running the tool assumes the IP team understands the project structure
+
** they should not have a deep technical understanding of the team
+
** part of this work has to be done by the project
+
* Wane
+
** he missed a yarn dependency -* knowing his tool
+
** We rely on project understanding the dependency
+
** we still need an IP log
+
* Kai
+
** list is what is generated by maven
+
** is anybody validating the IP log
+
* Wane
+
** I do and I run them too
+
** but 1 week before the release** may be late
+
* Kai
+
** if you run the tool on list of dependencies
+
** we do not need any CQ anymore
+
* Alexander
+
** we don't need the CQ as we run the tool
+
** but the project has to run the tool to see the output
+
** example: new JUnit version 1 week before the release
+
** licensing is not fast for the latest version
+
* Wane
+
** that is the case you need to engage the IP team with a CQ
+
** CQ the ticket to investigate the source
+
** 1 CQ for 700 npm dependencies
+
* Kai
+
** spring new miner version every few months
+
** still have to create CQs
+
* Wane
+
** we need it**only* on releases
+
** forget intermediate version
+
** I don't care when a version is only used during development
+
** the release version what we care about
+
 
** engage IP team as early as possible
 
** engage IP team as early as possible
** CD adds unknown libs** 4 weeks later it may know the answer
 
* Gunnar
 
** we also use IPzilla
 
* Wane
 
** IP team updates CD data
 
** opportunity to reduce paperwork with CQ
 
** opportunity on test and work only
 
  
 
==== Incubation ====
 
==== Incubation ====

Revision as of 09:01, 9 July 2020


This page captures meeting notes of the Eclipse Architecture Council. Please add topics for the next call to the backlog, but not during a call!

Standing Agenda

  • Update from EMO (Wayne/Gunnar)
  • Infrastructure Update (Denis)
  • Backlog

Backlog

(Please add agenda items/topics for discussion here.)

  • The majority of EPP packages are currently slated to contain incubating components in IDE 2020-06. There is a question about whether the downloadable file name must contain "incubating" or simply mention this in its description.
    • Argument for: our EPP packages are "opinionated" and aimed at end-users, the state of the included projects and technologies is paramount
    • Projects see leaving incubation as a cost without any obvious value

Action Items

  • none

Past Meetings

June 11, 2020

  • EMO Update
    • Reminding projects that a release review required only once per year; starting to push back on projects requesting too often
    • Working on a better communication strategy
    • Reminder that piggyback are not used anymore
  • General discussion about the IP tools
    • Goal: reduced engagement with IP team
    • Clearly Defined is used to just extract license info
    • Tool to automate as much as possible
    • The project handbook needs an update; it doesn't mention the IP tool currently
    • Projects should capture the output of the tool and version it
    • PMCs should help with educating projects
  • PMC voting discussion - is it a mandatory thing?
    • IP team needs to know it makes sense
    • PMC can discuss on the CQ, but as soon as someone adds a +1 they jump in and consider it consent, i.e. just one PMC vote is sufficient
    • There are some problems with IPzilla; occasionally +1 does not trigger the process correclty
    • Kai asked if we canagree that if any of the PMC hits OK then it is OK
    • Wayne replied that one member can approve it, if he can do it with confidence then it is OK
    • In the past more formal voting was required; this is no longer required. This change was not communicated properly.
    • With a growing base of projects it becomes harder from PMC to be aware of all codebases
      • we as PMC trust project leads
    • We need the PMC to clarify if it is a "works with"
    • Also, only if the content requires further review a CQ has to be created
  • Should the IP run the tool instead of committers?
    • Concern that this is a lot more work for a small team
    • IP team running the tool assumes the IP team understands the project structure and all technologies
    • Thus, it makes more sense that this work has to be done by the projects
  • Latency between new released and updates in IP database
    • spring new miner version every few months; still have to create CQs
    • Wayne: we need it **only* on releases; forget intermediate version
    • engage IP team as early as possible

Incubation

  • Jonah
    • do we need to incubate every EPP package
    • number of incubating
    • lsp4J
  • Gunnr
    • we had incubating problems before
    • feature must be branded with incubating
    • EPP needs to declare that
  • Wane
    • why is it still incubating??
  • Jonah
    • lsp4J does not have stable APIs
    • we won't have stable APIs
  • Gunnar
    • challenge stable APIs
    • projects understand the requirement
    • API is a framework to support adopters
    • we need to clarify the wording -* have a sense for adoption support
    • every project defines its own rules
  • Wane
    • PMC can define what stable means
    • Instead: don't screw your adopters
  • Jonah
    • get lsp4j to graduate
  • Alex
    • what is the benefit of marking as incubating
    • for the end user visible no need to label incubating
  • Wane
    • will take to the IP adviser community
  • Gunnar
    • incubation could contain IP problems
  • Wane
    • leaning process
    • codebase is unstable
    • ideal: lear and after one release graduate
    • used to be some benefits ins trying in incubation
  • Dani
    • makes sense to drop incubation
  • Gunnar
    • for transparency it may be helpful -* some companies care
    • we need the motivation to move out of incubation
  • Jonah
    • reality that is not the case
  • Gunnar
    • wrong discussion** we are not Github
    • what is the benefit of incubation
  • Dani
    • it is punishing the package
  • Wane
    • the package owners have the motivation to push the incubating projects
    • upstream care about it
    • as consumer I want the API to be stable
  • Gunnar
    • no need in the download name
    • enough in the about dialog
  • Jonah
    • we are changing file names at the moment
    • the filename is `-incubation` is the current state
  • Wane
    • don't change the file names
    • fix this by moving them out of incubation
    • keep the file name

Action item

  • AC brings proposal on how we want to solve it and send it to IP advisor community

May 14, 2020

  • EMO Update
    • Wayne asked one more time for feedback on the IP tool.
    • The IP tool is now part of Dash in GitHub and pull-request are welcome.
      • Jonah contributed Yarn support.
    • There are a few interesting project proposals coming up and mentors wanted.
  • Infrastructure Update
    • New firewalls were put in place in early May. They har redundant and part of the program to reduce single-point-of-failures.
    • Thanks to a lot of help we are clear for a long-overdue Gerrit update. The sandbox is running and an upgrade is planned for after the 2020-06 release. Please prepare as Gerrit will come with a new UI/UX.
    • Jonah asked if we are on the latest version of Bugzilla. Denis confirmed we are on the latest official release.
      • There is an edit extension that Denis was unable to get to work in our Bugzilla instance.
    • Setup of a production GitLab instance in Switzerland started.
  • Removing Inactive Committers
    • The general feedback is that this should not be automated.
    • However, having a regular reminder to project leads for housekeeping the committers is a good idea.
    • The definition of "active" is blurry. Hence, it always has to be a manual process.

March 12, 2020

  • Infrastructure Update
    • New servers ready to go to replace servers that failed last month. ETA next week.
    • Better hardware and 10 GBit technology will make things much better in the backend.
  • EMO Update
    • Wayne thanked for feedback to IP tooling received so far. It's helpful. Please provide more feedback if you can.
    • The Next steps are to make a repository available and bring tooling to the Eclipse Dash project and make it available.
    • As of today, CQs for known license sources of 3rd party content is no longer required.
  • 3rd-party Mailing Lists
    • Emily made us aware of an ask to send committer nomination emails to mailing lists outside Eclipse.org. While the PMI cannot do it easily, there is a workaround by subscribing the external mailing list to the Eclipse.org mailing list.
  • New candidates for Architecture Council Membership (Wayne)
    • We need to recruit/include members that are not yet known and work in Eclipse projects for a very long time already but with no intersection with others.
    • Gunnar proposed a mentorship/outreach program/sessions where one AC member starts a conversation with potential candidates, explains the role of the AC, the work, etc. The goal is to get to know each other and invite new members to the AC.
  • Anonymous contributions (Jonah)
    • A GitHub account as a contributor is ok, it can be traced back to an individual.
    • An ECA must be signed in any case. This requires a real email address and this is sufficient.
    • EMO expectation to committers is to monitor and catch/report shenanigans.
    • The handbook wording needs an updated and will be investigated separately.
  • Parallel IP (Jonah)
    • Wayne explained that Parallel IP is now the standard way of doing things at Eclipse.
    • The code can go in early but a release needs to wait for a full review.
    • It's important to put release records into PMI as early as possible. The IP team will use the dates to prioritize their work.


January 9, 2020

  • Welcome Noopur to the AC
  • No other topics so end the meeting early

Archive

Older meeting notes can be found in Architecture Council/Meetings/Archive.

Back to the top