A part of the original JEP was to design an aspirational collaboration process that we wanted to promote back then, and use the power of the process to achieve that. I feel like the situation and the priority has changed a little since then.
What I mentioned to a few people on various occasions is that IMHO our current priority should be more on enabling existing doers to make impactful changes more easily, less on empowering new contributors to lead significant changes on their own. So from that perspective, tweaking JEP to reflect how things are working in practice is a great idea. That's what I assume you meant by "streamlined process." (That said, what I hate the most is for people to spend lots of time discussing how the process should be tweaked. That to me is the most counter productive!) My 2 cents. On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:56 AM Jesse Glick <[email protected]> wrote: > Shall > > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/1#bdfl > > be amended somehow, to not assume KK has time to get involved? For > example to cut out the BDFL layer between JEP editors/reviewers and > the governance meeting? Also > > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/9#specification > > As a practical matter, > > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/1#jep-review > > has never been followed very consistently in my experience; > implementations get merged and released following regular hosting > and/or code review processes, while the JEP is still officially a > “draft”, and the “accepted” and “final” phases are skipped or a > formality. Maybe it is time for a streamlined process. > -- Kohsuke Kawaguchi -- 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/CAN4CQ4ycQhP5-vsPcRSUFcLQ3it7wCkk8tMh1dHcUYe3vX2Jcw%40mail.gmail.com.
