Hello all, I've attempted to synthesize the key points made here into a PR for JEP 1: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/76
The scope of this change expanded a bit, but I think the result is clearer. Please feel free to comment (or even better to commit edits directly). Thanks, Liam On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 1:25:34 PM UTC-7, Liam Newman wrote: > > Andrew, > > That's an interesting point as well. The process is still relatively new, > so it's not surprising that there's a learning curve and a need for more > examples. JEPs with tighter focus will definitely move through the process > more quickly, since they will require less discussion, design-time, > implementation time, and consensus building. JEP-200 was a good example > of that tight focus and it still took some time. > > One way that Tyler has been addressing the scope considerations in > relation the Jenkins Essentials is splitting the overall project into > multiple JEPs. JEP-300 covers the overall goals and high-level design, and > delegates the internal design of those components to sub-JEPs that are > being filed as work gets rolling. I don't know if that means JEP-300 will > be accepted sooner or will remain as draft, but it looks like that will be > the case. > > It would be nice to have more JEPs filed to for a base of examples we can > point people to, but I suspect we'll have to wait for that to grow > organically over time. > > -L. > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 7:48 AM Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPbPdOYd95v-JZV%3Dmfx7716MJHA5e4kcUMETJfQsfN9QVndSxw%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/3d4a812b-c2e0-47b8-8e9a-2fb5f5f9ffce%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
