[sakai2-tcc] Enhancement branch merge policy (end period) clarification

Tue May 24 00:52:37 PDT 2011

Here are my 2 cents...

>From my point of view, the power of decission should be divided in between the community and TCC. It's true that Community is the pilar upon Sakai is built. At the end, it is the Community who uses Sakai and who can suggest or remark what She finds useful or not and, thus, what should be included, merged or even developed. If we don't hear our market, our software won't adapt to their needs and we'll probably fail. This is one of the marketing essentials. Give your users what they want. :) On the other hand, leaving Sakai evolution alone, only in users hands, can be chaotic and it's here where TCC must act. TCC should weight what market wants with what can be done or mantained. For example, if there is a Feature Request that everybody wants, it has a very old patch attached but there is nobody willing to take care of that FR and adapt it to newer Sakai releases, TCC should study in detail how to act (asking volunteers and so on, but no discarding it from the begining).

On the other way, what I think it is critical is time and also to state explicity what the process is. We need to design a process that allow community developers to contribute in a flexible and fast way. Waiting a week seems reasonable to me. In any case, everything should be written clearly at Confluence and dissemination should be done (for example, sending periodic reminders about JIRA practices to sakai-dev list).

Cheers,
   David
________________________________________
De: May, Megan Marie [mmmay at indiana.edu]
Enviado el: lunes, 23 de mayo de 2011 19:21
Para: Matthew Jones
CC: Beth Kirschner; Jean-Francois Leveque; sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org; DAVID ROLDAN MARTINEZ
Asunto: RE: [sakai2-tcc] Enhancement branch merge policy (end period) clarification

I disagree that the tcc should be the primary contact.    These are changes that impact the community and as such, the greater community should be the primary point for consultation.      Yes, the TCC should be providing oversight but I believe that is something that can be done from the wings.

Putting the TCC was the primary contact doesn’t seems to encourage the broader type of collaboration that the community needs.

That’s my 2 cents.
Megan

From: jonespm at gmail.com [mailto:jonespm at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Jones
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:43 AM
To: May, Megan Marie
Cc: Beth Kirschner; Jean-Francois Leveque; sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org; DAVID ROLDAN MARTINEZ
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Enhancement branch merge policy (end period) clarification

I believe it is useful to notify sakai-dev for these, but that TCC was the only group that could override the inclusion of the merge. This is the process as mentioned on confluence, just that no time was defined for how long objections could be raised. And it was going to be a lazy consensus which after a certain (currently undisclosed?) period of time passed with no objection, that the change would be merged into the branch.

I personally would suggest that tcc be kept the more important contact

1) Criteria outline in JIRA as already described on confluence
2) 1st announcement to tcc with cc to production and dev announcing request
. . . Wait some period of time for no objections from TCC - I suggested 1 week, then officially included in next RM/MT meeting
3) 2nd announcement to tcc with cc production and dev after merging

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:03 AM, May, Megan Marie <mmmay at indiana.edu<mailto:mmmay at indiana.edu>> wrote:
This sounds good to me.

There hasn't been any objections to the refinements or alternate suggestions.  The spirit of the practice isn't changing so I don't believe that we need a formal vote on this.

Would you update the confluence documentation?
Megan

-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Kirschner [mailto:bkirschn at umich.edu<mailto:bkirschn at umich.edu>]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:51 PM
To: Jean-Francois Leveque
Cc: May, Megan Marie; Matthew Jones; sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org<mailto:sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org>; DAVID ROLDAN MARTINEZ
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Enhancement branch merge policy (end period) clarification

+1

On May 20, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:

> Megan,
>
> I'm not Beth and my own vision was a bit blurred. ;)
>
> I think the following order is worth trying:
> 1) Criteria outline in JIRA
> 2) 1st announcement to dev and production with cc to TCC
> 3) 2nd announcement to dev and production with cc to TCC if all goes
> fine
>
> WDYT?
>
> J-F
>
> On 20/05/2011 17:01, May, Megan Marie wrote:
>> Beth,
>>   What was your vision?
>>
>> Megan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jean-Francois Leveque [mailto:jean-francois.leveque at upmc.fr<mailto:jean-francois.leveque at upmc.fr>]
>> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 8:42 AM
>> To: May, Megan Marie
>> Cc: Matthew Jones; Beth Kirschner;
>> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org<mailto:sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org>; DAVID ROLDAN MARTINEZ
>> Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Enhancement branch merge policy (end
>> period) clarification
>>
>> I thought the criteria outline was prepared and went to the TCC oversight before any announcement on other lists.
>>
>> I think the process has to be more explicit regarding the order.
>>
>> Do you mean CCing sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org<mailto:sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org> when sending to other lists will do as far as oversight is concerned?
>>
>> +1 on JIRA criteria outline. If everyone is OK, this should be in the
>> policy page.
>>
>> J-F
>>
>> On 19/05/2011 21:16, May, Megan Marie wrote:
>>> It was my understanding that the announcement needed to be made to
>>> the community at large for comment. I think that it only went to the
>>> TCC list (which there are not a large number of lurkers).
>>>
>>> My thoughts on how this should work are
>>>
>>> *The JIRA should outline how the criteria is met
>>>
>>> *The announcement should be sent to the community at large (which
>>> would also outline the above). I never thought about the wait time
>>> but I think
>>> 1 week sounds fair
>>>
>>> Right now my impression is that the TCC oversight is that we all are
>>> monitoring to ensure the above is happening and step in if things
>>> seemed to go awry during the trial period.
>>>
>>> ~Me
>>>
>>> *From:*sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org<mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org>
>>> [mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org<mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org>] *On Behalf Of
>>> *Matthew Jones
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:09 PM
>>> *To:* Beth Kirschner
>>> *Cc:* sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org<mailto:sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org>
>>> *Subject:* [sakai2-tcc] Enhancement branch merge policy (end period)
>>> clarification
>>>
>>> Hi Beth (and others),
>>>
>>> A question came up about (enhancement) Branch Policy policy today
>>> [1] on the RM call and I don't remember if there was ever an answer
>>> to it. It's was regarding when the period for discussion is over and
>>> merging can be done. Since you drafted the proposal maybe you
>>> remember if there was an answer?
>>>
>>> * Yesterday JFL floated the request to merge SAK-14625 to 2.7.x.
>>> (Add group section filter to dropbox) [2] Currently this has been
>>> met with silence which is okay based on the policy. But there's
>>> nothing that states how much time should pass before action can be
>>> taken to actually merge this. No formal vote or discussion is required based on the proposal.
>>>
>>> But when should it get actually merged if there are no objections? 1
>>> week? By the next release management call? When TCC chair says
>>> "Since there were no objections to the request to merge SAK-14625 it
>>> shall be merged!" I don't really have a great opinion on this.
>>> Minimum 1 week from email then made official (in or out) at the next
>>> RM call seems like the best option to me? Many of us on the RM call are also on TCC.
>>>
>>> I plan to write up one for annotated URL (SAK-19369) for the next
>>> 2.7 release as well. I think these 2 were the first so far? There
>>> might be a few more as we look to getting a 2.7.2 release out.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/TCC/Maintenance+Branch+M
>>> erge+Policy
>>> <https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/TCC/Maintenance+Branch+
>>> Merge+Policy>
>>>
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai2-tcc/2011-May/001108.
>>> html
>
>
> --
> Jean-François Lévêque
> Responsable technique Sakai
> Université Pierre et Marie Curie
>
> --
> Jean-Francois Leveque
> Australe CTO (local Sakai CLE)
> University Pierre and Marie Curie
> France
>
>