I think it’s more a cultural thing re comfortableness of followup JEPs - we need to have precedents and examples so that people will feel like oh, it’s ok that this stuff didn’t get into that JEP, we can just do a new JEP with it. Leaving proposals open for too long in order to make sure every possible tangentially related matter gets in is a path to stagnation. We’re far better off with more JEPs of potentially smaller size/scope, potentially amending earlier JEPs, than a small number of bloated ones, IMO.
A. On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:34 AM Liam Newman <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a ton of great feedback, thanks! > > Ewelina, > > JEPs have a number of purposes, but they are definitely _not_ meant to > stifle innovation. At minimum though, they are meant to provide a medium > for building consensus on the design and implementation of major > features/processes of the Jenkins (and related) project. > > Without JEP, contributors such as yourself, might do months of work only > to have that work rejected or asked to be redesigned. From the other side, > the Project might get random contributors who ride in and want to have drop > in some massive features without having discussed and reviewed with the > rest of the project. > > I think the main misunderstanding (due to lack of clarity in JEP-1) is the > idea that a JEP must be "Accepted" in order for contributors to have > confidence in the value and validity of their work. That is absolutely not > the case. > > "Accepted" means that that Reviewer and Sponsor have looked at the JEP and > agreed that _scoping and design_ are complete and have the consensus of the > community, and that what remains is completing the (already well underway) > implementation. "Accepted" is a description of the technical state of the > proposed component/feature/process. "Accepted" is _not_ (and should not be > viewed or used as) a "vote of confidence". > > Conversely, "Draft" is not a commentary on the likelihood that the JEP > will eventually be "Accepted". That can only determined by the Sponsors > and the Reviewers based on discussion and feedback on the mailing list or > other forums. "Draft" is _not_ (and should not be viewed as) an indicator > of any lack of confidence in a proposal. > > > Now when I see a requirement > *> "all 'significant changes' to a JEP should be completed before it is > Accepted"* > > it makes me worry that if I end up working on next JEP, for another > project, > > I will be very careful and it will take ages to put it into "Accepted" > (maybe it's > > not a problem). And then, like with JCasC, we learn while we implement > it, > > we discover issues and things that we can't do the way we want to do. > > Do we have to discover all of that before "Accepting" JEP? > > In short, yes, but as you might gather from my response above, that is not > a bad thing. > > In the case of JEP-201, there has been no commentary it indicate that it > lacks support, nor any doubt about the value of the work being done. I > think that the lack of clarity about the meaning of "Accepted" extends to > the reviewers, so JEP-201 was marked as "Accepted" before the design was > sufficiently complete. But I also personally have no doubt that once the > design is complete, JEP-201 will be "Accepted". > > > Maybe it wouldn't be the worst idea to organize a Jenkins Online Meetup > around JEP concept? > > Yes, as noted above, I agree there is still misunderstanding about the JEP > process. I wouldn't have though to have JOM on this, but maybe we > should. It would be good to highlight that this process exists, talk about > when and how to use it, and so on. It would probably have to wait until > May (April is looking pretty full already). In the meanwhile, I still want > to update JEP-1 to clarify > > Jesse, Thanks for responding. You devil's advocate helped me craft the > above response. Also, do you feel we make it hard to file followup JEPs? > > Joseph, Carlos, I hope this response addresses your points. If not please > say so, and I'll respond specifically. > > Thanks, > -Liam > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:25 AM Jesse Glick <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Carlos Sanchez <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > "all 'significant changes' to a JEP should be >> > completed before it is Accepted" looks like a requirement that may >> hinder >> > innovation and experimentation on areas that are not clear from the >> start. >> >> To play devil’s advocate (I do not have strong feelings about this), >> we should just make it comfortable enough to file follow-up JEPs that >> this is normal practice. A JEP should stay as a Draft until there is a >> clearly working implementation released. Once Accepted, there should >> no eyebrows raised by filing another (initially Draft) JEP like “2018 >> refreshes to JEP-234 in light of mistakes made”. That can discuss any >> compatibility issues that might affect early adopters of the original >> version. >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr0F9z4sXKfZOGU%3D2vtveBt%2BdqReBy%2B4o5tpcwmNTKYEOQ%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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAA0qCNzNY4FZys4j7_bc07UmCkgaQf%3D0bMqn%2BDj_ogetDvTsGQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAA0qCNzNY4FZys4j7_bc07UmCkgaQf%3D0bMqn%2BDj_ogetDvTsGQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPbPdOYd95v-JZV%3Dmfx7716MJHA5e4kcUMETJfQsfN9QVndSxw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
