Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

R. Tyler Croy
At the Jenkins World Contributor Summit a couple weeks ago, I shared some
thoughts I have been having on how we can continue to grow and improve Jenkins.
One of those thoughts centers around the fundamental challenge: how do we, as a
group, make large transformational changes to Jenkins (and still get along and
like each other during the process).

Python users may recognize this structure, which is how the Python community
has organized their work. PEP in the Python community has allowed Python to
make *massive* changes over the past 15 years to what Python is, without
killing each other (very important).


I would like to propose the following process of a "Jenkins Enhancement
Proposal":

    https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1


The overarching rationale for this proposal can be found in the rationale
section: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1#rationale

I also created an example of an Informational JEP here:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/2


For discussion on this foundational JEP, I suggest using this mailing list
thread. To propose changes, or fix some verbiage, feel free to open a pull
request targeting that `jep-1` branch.


To agree to this change in process, I don't think a "BDFL" or "BDFL-Delegate"
approval itself (read the doc) is sufficient. I think we should try to reach
consensus on this thread, and assuming there's consensus, approve the proposal
during the next Governance Meeting (Sept 27th).


Feel free to ping me via email or IRC if you have questions which you do not
feel belong in the mailing list discussion.


Thank you in advance for spending the time to read JEP-1 :)


Cheers
- R. Tyler Croy

------------------------------------------------------
     Code: <https://github.com/rtyler>
  Chatter: <https://twitter.com/agentdero>
     xmpp: [hidden email]

  % gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 1426C7DC3F51E16F
------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/20170913193251.3fohpy76pt5lo55p%40blackberry.coupleofllamas.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

ogondza
I suspect this question might have been asked in the room but are we ok
with the name collisions with Java Enhancement Proposals? Which one we
are referring to should be straightforward from the context but when
this becomes more widespread and changes will be refereed to by their
IDs, google searches will be quite confusing especially given the fact
the areas are somewhat related. How about JIP? or JEEP :P

--
oliver

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/bc7139d8-e24e-da6c-f8c0-c3bcca36f5fa%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Jesse Glick-4
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Oliver Gondža <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I suspect this question might have been asked in the room but are we ok with
> the name collisions with Java Enhancement Proposals?

I had the same thought. JKEP-nnn?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr2-AC-T2ACYKYwh_7qHZzRqAZ-nK0G1JmUnJrjDXuDqSg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

R. Tyler Croy
In reply to this post by ogondza
(replies inline)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Oliver Gond??a wrote:

> I suspect this question might have been asked in the room but are we ok with
> the name collisions with Java Enhancement Proposals? Which one we are
> referring to should be straightforward from the context but when this
> becomes more widespread and changes will be refereed to by their IDs, google
> searches will be quite confusing especially given the fact the areas are
> somewhat related. How about JIP? or JEEP :P


If I recall correctly, Jesse did mention the Java Enhancement Proposals acronym
collision at the Contributor Summit.

Personally, I'm not bothered at all by it at since jenkins.io and
openjdk.java.net are pretty distinguishable. If the acronym is of extremely high
importance to somebody, I don't mind changing to something similarly short and
understandable. No yak-shaving on acronyms allowed though :P



Cheers
- R. Tyler Croy

------------------------------------------------------
     Code: <https://github.com/rtyler>
  Chatter: <https://twitter.com/agentdero>
     xmpp: [hidden email]

  % gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 1426C7DC3F51E16F
------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/20170913200637.p32pkmumum54a7wg%40blackberry.coupleofllamas.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Jesse Glick-4
In reply to this post by R. Tyler Croy
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:32 PM, R. Tyler Croy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think we should try to reach
> consensus on this thread

Sounds like a good idea to me! Structure seems pretty clear.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr32TJTKwgWmM5oegVZDGCOHnxV-9EoDaO%2B71jBh6zR5-g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Keith Zantow-2
... random suggestion: "JPI" Jenkins Proposal Initiative/Initiation.

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jesse Glick <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:32 PM, R. Tyler Croy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think we should try to reach
> consensus on this thread

Sounds like a good idea to me! Structure seems pretty clear.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr32TJTKwgWmM5oegVZDGCOHnxV-9EoDaO%2B71jBh6zR5-g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAJTHQaGTECfjPPq_kDt81YEUuWubTmyAqq7b1X%2B4YoGtMrGJDw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Owen Mehegan-2
Having read and edited JEP-1, I am in favor of this idea as presented :)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Keith Zantow <[hidden email]> wrote:
... random suggestion: "JPI" Jenkins Proposal Initiative/Initiation.

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jesse Glick <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:32 PM, R. Tyler Croy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think we should try to reach
> consensus on this thread

Sounds like a good idea to me! Structure seems pretty clear.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr32TJTKwgWmM5oegVZDGCOHnxV-9EoDaO%2B71jBh6zR5-g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAJTHQaGTECfjPPq_kDt81YEUuWubTmyAqq7b1X%2B4YoGtMrGJDw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAHtcACFrme5PD-FV8iJ9%2B4yraZtAhuX6iX68%2BtZ9-OYvYbsxfg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Liam Newman
In reply to this post by R. Tyler Croy
I think this is great idea. I agree with the proposed process.
 
I think the proposal document itself could use some tweaks, which I've suggested in PR (oops oh well). 


On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 12:33:04 PM UTC-7, R Tyler Croy wrote:
At the Jenkins World Contributor Summit a couple weeks ago, I shared some
thoughts I have been having on how we can continue to grow and improve Jenkins.
One of those thoughts centers around the fundamental challenge: how do we, as a
group, make large transformational changes to Jenkins (and still get along and
like each other during the process).

Python users may recognize this structure, which is how the Python community
has organized their work. PEP in the Python community has allowed Python to
make *massive* changes over the past 15 years to what Python is, without
killing each other (very important).


I would like to propose the following process of a "Jenkins Enhancement
Proposal":

    <a href="https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjenkinsci%2Fjep%2Ftree%2Fjep-1%2Fjep%2F1\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNEgkhFZ8tiJh51QN6TJGj_OEvI_8A&#39;;return true;" onclick="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjenkinsci%2Fjep%2Ftree%2Fjep-1%2Fjep%2F1\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNEgkhFZ8tiJh51QN6TJGj_OEvI_8A&#39;;return true;">https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1


The overarching rationale for this proposal can be found in the rationale
section: <a href="https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1#rationale" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjenkinsci%2Fjep%2Ftree%2Fjep-1%2Fjep%2F1%23rationale\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNHqbLFJOdnt_FyMq6V_SOmqtWhBcg&#39;;return true;" onclick="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjenkinsci%2Fjep%2Ftree%2Fjep-1%2Fjep%2F1%23rationale\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNHqbLFJOdnt_FyMq6V_SOmqtWhBcg&#39;;return true;">https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1#rationale

I also created an example of an Informational JEP here:
<a href="https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/2" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjenkinsci%2Fjep%2Fpull%2F2\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNFCYUHRgGpZN-SA7f5FEXybRYpq6Q&#39;;return true;" onclick="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjenkinsci%2Fjep%2Fpull%2F2\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNFCYUHRgGpZN-SA7f5FEXybRYpq6Q&#39;;return true;">https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/2


For discussion on this foundational JEP, I suggest using this mailing list
thread. To propose changes, or fix some verbiage, feel free to open a pull
request targeting that `jep-1` branch.


To agree to this change in process, I don't think a "BDFL" or "BDFL-Delegate"
approval itself (read the doc) is sufficient. I think we should try to reach
consensus on this thread, and assuming there's consensus, approve the proposal
during the next Governance Meeting (Sept 27th).


Feel free to ping me via email or IRC if you have questions which you do not
feel belong in the mailing list discussion.


Thank you in advance for spending the time to read JEP-1 :)


Cheers
- R. Tyler Croy

------------------------------------------------------
     Code: <<a href="https://github.com/rtyler" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Frtyler\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNFtsnCUZ085B8982iTQ2KFqz5gYhw&#39;;return true;" onclick="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Frtyler\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNFtsnCUZ085B8982iTQ2KFqz5gYhw&#39;;return true;">https://github.com/rtyler>
  Chatter: <<a href="https://twitter.com/agentdero" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fagentdero\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNEILlTAfpmlCsYIT_Phy_UKs4kUlw&#39;;return true;" onclick="this.href=&#39;https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fagentdero\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNEILlTAfpmlCsYIT_Phy_UKs4kUlw&#39;;return true;">https://twitter.com/agentdero>
     xmpp: <a href="javascript:" target="_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto="T9Nmhn-fAQAJ" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href=&#39;javascript:&#39;;return true;" onclick="this.href=&#39;javascript:&#39;;return true;">rty...@...

  % gpg --keyserver <a href="http://keys.gnupg.net" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href=&#39;http://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%2Fkeys.gnupg.net\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNGGvem0n8cSWWfyOfhzR-uVSpk4NQ&#39;;return true;" onclick="this.href=&#39;http://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%2Fkeys.gnupg.net\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNGGvem0n8cSWWfyOfhzR-uVSpk4NQ&#39;;return true;">keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 1426C7DC3F51E16F
------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/95e20056-7e89-4233-9a74-67522d0ea549%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

R. Tyler Croy
(replies inline)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Liam Newman wrote:

> I think this is great idea. I agree with the proposed process.
>  
> I think the proposal document itself could use some tweaks, which I've
> suggested in PR (oops oh well).


No worries whatsoever! This is still fresh from the oven, so it's no problem
whatsoever to "cross the streams" which we get comfortable with a workflow
here.

I have addressed many of your comments in a pull request to the `jep-1` branch
here: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/3


Of particular note for this group are some additions which I think Liam's 100%
in requesting, namely:

 * Consistently using Must/Should/May (https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/3/files#diff-43894e615b82e2536b1341c33ff49afeR116)
 * Structuring JEP-1 more closely with the sections JEP-1 outlines as important (https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/3/files#diff-43894e615b82e2536b1341c33ff49afeR565)



Thanks for helping!



- R. Tyler Croy

------------------------------------------------------
     Code: <https://github.com/rtyler>
  Chatter: <https://twitter.com/agentdero>
     xmpp: [hidden email]

  % gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 1426C7DC3F51E16F
------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/20170913214328.dctsetxh5mbfbumo%40blackberry.coupleofllamas.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

R. Tyler Croy
In reply to this post by R. Tyler Croy
(replies inline)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, R. Tyler Croy wrote:

>     https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1


Since I'm sure not everybody has been following along with some of the pull
requests and changes while we've been hammering out JEP-1, I would like to
provide a little bit of an update and solicit some help. This topic is very
important, so please read this email!

First, thanks to reviews from a number of folks including Oleg, Owen, Daniel,
and others, we have been able to tighten the proposal up quite a bit. Mostly
thanks to Liam's diligent slicing and dicing of text :)

While I had hoped we might be able to get some consensus in time for tomorrow's
project meeting, I don't think we are quite there yet. There has been lots of
helpful feedback on the review and decision-making process (BDFL/BDFL-delegate):
    https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1#review


To summarize the primary, and valid, criticisms if I may:

 1. Kohsuke as the BDFL introduces a problematic bottleneck to the process
    (there are way more of us, than there are of him).

 2. JEP-1 introduces a different way of decision making than has been
    traditionally followed with the Governance Meeting
    (https://jenkins.io/project/governance/#meeting)


I would like to guide the discussion towards addressing these. I also want to
ensure our process is sensitive to contributors around the world, especially
those in Australia and Asia who are typically asleep during the scheduled
project meetings and rely on asynchronous mediums like email.

If you have an example structure for technical decision-making from another
project, which you think is applicable, please chime in!


Personally, what I'm thinking right now is to flip the Python model upside
down: when the JEP Author creates a draft they (or a JEP Editor) list a
"Delegate" who would be somebody with good standing as the maintainer of that
subject area, other than themselves.

For example, if I were proposing a design on Remoting, Oleg would be the
obvious Delegate. If Andrew were proposing some design around Pipeline, Jesse
would be a reasonable Delegate. Rather than expecting a BDFL to be "plugged
into" each JEP, we self-select more (which I think we're all capable of doing).
For the times when we might have conflcit, then we can use the Governance
Meeting process to resolve who the appropriate Delegate for a proposal may be.
To help new comers, including a list of "Suggested Delegates" in the JEP repo
could also be helpful.

I think that could avoid the problems with the current BDFL proposal, while
reducing the need to run every JEP through the Governance Meeting process,
where not all the stakeholders will necessarily be present.



Of course, I'm open to more suggestions and discussion. Like I said at the
beginning of the email, I think getting this right is important.


Cheers
- R. Tyler Croy

------------------------------------------------------
     Code: <https://github.com/rtyler>
  Chatter: <https://twitter.com/agentdero>
     xmpp: [hidden email]

  % gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 1426C7DC3F51E16F
------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/20170919171212.j3sjo4fawhisfieb%40blackberry.coupleofllamas.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request for feedback: Jenkins Enhancement Proposal (JEP)

Robert Sandell-2
I didn't get the sense that the BDFL would be a bottle neck when you explained it to us at the contributor summit.
To me it seemed like the BDFL would only have to get involved if consensus between the author, editors and other reviewers can't be reached, or if he needs to put in a veto to stop something (in his mind) crazy from happening.

That said having Subject Matter Experts on hand to either serve as a "Deputy BDFL" for a specific area, or just someone that gets an explicit ping when a JEP affecting "their" area comes in might be good to have.

/B

2017-09-19 19:12 GMT+02:00 R. Tyler Croy <[hidden email]>:
(replies inline)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, R. Tyler Croy wrote:

>     https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1


Since I'm sure not everybody has been following along with some of the pull
requests and changes while we've been hammering out JEP-1, I would like to
provide a little bit of an update and solicit some help. This topic is very
important, so please read this email!

First, thanks to reviews from a number of folks including Oleg, Owen, Daniel,
and others, we have been able to tighten the proposal up quite a bit. Mostly
thanks to Liam's diligent slicing and dicing of text :)

While I had hoped we might be able to get some consensus in time for tomorrow's
project meeting, I don't think we are quite there yet. There has been lots of
helpful feedback on the review and decision-making process (BDFL/BDFL-delegate):
    https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1#review


To summarize the primary, and valid, criticisms if I may:

 1. Kohsuke as the BDFL introduces a problematic bottleneck to the process
    (there are way more of us, than there are of him).

 2. JEP-1 introduces a different way of decision making than has been
    traditionally followed with the Governance Meeting
    (https://jenkins.io/project/governance/#meeting)


I would like to guide the discussion towards addressing these. I also want to
ensure our process is sensitive to contributors around the world, especially
those in Australia and Asia who are typically asleep during the scheduled
project meetings and rely on asynchronous mediums like email.

If you have an example structure for technical decision-making from another
project, which you think is applicable, please chime in!


Personally, what I'm thinking right now is to flip the Python model upside
down: when the JEP Author creates a draft they (or a JEP Editor) list a
"Delegate" who would be somebody with good standing as the maintainer of that
subject area, other than themselves.

For example, if I were proposing a design on Remoting, Oleg would be the
obvious Delegate. If Andrew were proposing some design around Pipeline, Jesse
would be a reasonable Delegate. Rather than expecting a BDFL to be "plugged
into" each JEP, we self-select more (which I think we're all capable of doing).
For the times when we might have conflcit, then we can use the Governance
Meeting process to resolve who the appropriate Delegate for a proposal may be.
To help new comers, including a list of "Suggested Delegates" in the JEP repo
could also be helpful.

I think that could avoid the problems with the current BDFL proposal, while
reducing the need to run every JEP through the Governance Meeting process,
where not all the stakeholders will necessarily be present.



Of course, I'm open to more suggestions and discussion. Like I said at the
beginning of the email, I think getting this right is important.


Cheers
- R. Tyler Croy

------------------------------------------------------
     Code: <https://github.com/rtyler>
  Chatter: <https://twitter.com/agentdero>
     xmpp: [hidden email]

  % gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 1426C7DC3F51E16F
------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/20170919171212.j3sjo4fawhisfieb%40blackberry.coupleofllamas.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Robert Sandell
Software Engineer
CloudBees Inc.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CALzHZS0gCQcc3qAJJ%2Bimw2j4E-%3DqZVnwcrpP2AefFW000_Y0Kw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.