On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 4:28 PM Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]> wrote: > [the JEP process] does not achieve its main purpose - facilitate the > community feedback, help JEP submitters to get their changes delivered, and > to ensure that all changes are net-positive for the Jenkins project and > beneficial for Jenkins users down the line. > … > JEP process is followed if there is no consensus OR there is major impact on > users (breaking changes)
I would draw the line very differently and say that the JEP _process_ is not so important as the JEP itself: it is a single clear document explaining to future generations how a particular major design decision in Jenkins was made and why, all with an easily remembered handle “JEP-456”. There need not be any breaking changes involved or lack of consensus. In fact if there is no consensus then there is no point in having a numbered JEP at all: you should first work to refine your idea with skeptics, or just defer it. (File a draft PR if you want something to refer to.) Echoing KK (I think!), JEP should be a tool which assists people who are already comfortable working on Jenkins. Keep the “editor” role, responsible for matters of form and administration; and merge “sponsor”, “contributors”, “BDFL”, “BDFL delegate”, and “reviewer” into a simple “author” who is responsible for submitting the JEP, doing the implementation, and delivering it, or delegating pieces of this as they see fit. The board would just be a last resort in case someone is trying to push through an unpopular change, with or without a JEP. -- 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/CANfRfr2WCdgfmTLh7FM2JKhBQ-FEJx3_Bha8vjMCbWVS%3DsFHxA%40mail.gmail.com.
