[JEP-1] - Rework the Jenkins Enhancement Proposal review process to use the Jenkins open governance decision making by oleg-nenashev · Pull Request #359 · jenkinsci/jep

oleg-nenashev · 2021-05-06T14:10:07Z

JEP-1 was modified according to the discussion in this thread and the Jenkins governance meeting.

Key changes:

Replace the former BDFL-driven review and acceptance process by the standard decision making process documented in the Jenkins governance document. The BDFL role does no longer include JEP reviews and decision making.
Deprecate the BDFL Delegate role. This change also deprecates JEP-9: How BDFL Delegates, because the delegation is no longer needed.
Update Limits of BDFL model reasoning to document the current state and reasons which led to the change.
Replace the Sponsor role by Champion
Introduce the new Advisor role.
Define the minimum 7 calendar days period between the JEP is approved by the Reviewer and transferred to the Accepted state.

After we reach the consensus consensus:

Update the role names in the JEP table
Add the "Reviewer" column, move the current BDFL delegates there
Update the status update scripts to reflect the new summary structure

…minology

jglick

Seems reasonable from a very quick glance.

bitwiseman

A bunch of suggestions.

I feel like there is still some clean up to be done with dangling references to things that don't work when the BDFL is replaced by the community.

If contributors [the community) believe a decision made by the <> [also generally the community] runs counter to the best interests to Jenkins project,
they may request the <> to review the decision.

Huh?

bitwiseman · 2021-05-06T15:20:21Z

+NOTE: Before May 2021 the term referred to "the BDFL or BDFL Delegate that will review this JEP".
+This does no longer apply.
+
+=== Deprecated terms


I wonder if we want to move this to the Reasoning section. Historical info goes there generally.

No strong opinion. I can even move it to the Change history section in the bottom. As long as the anchor is preserved, we are fine

Yes, let's put this under it's own heading in the Reasoning.

bitwiseman · 2021-05-06T19:24:34Z

+If contributors believe a decision made by the <<Reviewer>> runs counter to the best interests to Jenkins project,
+they may request the <<Jenkins community>> to review the decision.
+Also, they may do in the case of the  the overall JEP process disputes (rather than one specific JEP).
+The community or, if needed, the Jenkins Governance Board,
+will take up the matter and render a decision within a reasonable timeframe.
+Similar to the judiciary, the community will _not_ make technical decisions,
+they will only affirm or reject the Reviewer's decision.


@oleg-nenashev
This part of the process needs more rewriting. It doesn't really make sense as it stands.

Not sure how to phrase it yet though.

bitwiseman · 2021-05-06T19:25:12Z

 === Limits of BDFL model

-People expressed concern over the limits of the current model where the BDFL
+During the original discussion of the JEP process in 2017,


I'd prefer to make a new heading for the switch from BDFL and leave this section mostly unchanged.

bitwiseman · 2021-05-06T19:27:42Z

 * link:https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/19[PR 19]
 * link:https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/76[PR 76]

+== Change history


I don't think this is part of the headings. Maybe put this under "Reasoning?

I would prefer to have it in the bottom for process JEPs which may change from time to time. Happy to create a separate PR to the JEP-1 and the template to make it standard. WDYT?

Still prefer to leave it to Git to track exact historical changes. If there are changes to decisions, as in this case, then it makes sense to write them up under Reasoning:

Originally a BDFL was part of this process, but the community switched to a system based on the governance board because…

Co-authored-by: Liam Newman <bitwiseman@gmail.com>

bitwiseman · 2021-05-07T23:54:33Z

@@ -112,22 +115,14 @@ There are three kinds of JEP:



If BDFL has no responsibilities, do we even need to keep the role?

No offense intended to Kohsuke, but why have a role defined for this process that has no active role in this process?

I have contacted KK several days ago about the future of the BDFL role. Just FYI, pending discussion

bitwiseman · 2021-05-08T00:15:31Z

+  This decision is made in a publicly traceable form.
+  Andrea announces the decision in the discussion channel defined for the JEP,
+  and explicitly sets the final response timeout (see <<accepted>>),
+  e.g. by saying "this JEP might be accepted in 7 calendar days unless there is unaddressed negative feedback".


Suggested change

e.g. by saying "this JEP might be accepted in 7 calendar days unless there is unaddressed negative feedback".

e.g. by saying "this JEP will be accepted in 7 calendar days unless there is additional feedback".

Commonly we commit on a minimum timeslot. What I am trying to say is that "This change will not be merged before the 7 days timeout, but might be merged shortly afterwards. It might be also merged later due to JEP editor availability or other reasons"

Do you agree with the comment @bitwiseman ?

Co-authored-by: Liam Newman <bitwiseman@gmail.com>

Also tuned the reasoning section to read more smoothly.

bitwiseman · 2021-05-10T17:25:54Z

+Once the champion believes a JEP meets at least the minimum criteria to be "<<Accepted, Accepted>>",
 they request the JEP be reviewed for acceptance, usually via
 an email to the jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com mailing list.
 The JEP <<Reviewer>> and their chosen consultants then review the JEP.


This makes no sense in the new context of generally community consensus for review.

bitwiseman · 2021-05-10T17:31:40Z

@oleg-nenashev
I've pushed a commit the moves the change description into the reasoning section. Rather than treating it as a "change history" it describes the reasoning/intent for this change. I also tuned up the rest of the reasoning around BDFL vs consensus. If you disagree with the changes feel free to revert of modify.

Next steps:

Determine if BDFL can be removed from the document entirely
Rewrite review and acceptance steps of the process to make sense in the context where there is rarely only one reviewer.

oleg-nenashev · 2021-05-13T17:11:25Z

Not that I fully agree with this approach @bitwiseman, I believe a changes summary history is very useful for Process JEPs which are designed to be modifiable when needed. At the same time it is not a hill I want to die on, so let's keep it as is. I might come up with Change history proposal as a separate JEP-1 edit

bitwiseman · 2021-06-21T20:55:23Z

@oleg-nenashev
What is the word on the two next steps above?

oleg-nenashev · 2021-06-22T11:23:38Z

I have a proposal almost ready to go,but I am distracted by personal events, the company-internal priorities and the contributor summit. I hope to return to it in July, no promises. CC @MarkEWaite

oleg-nenashev added 2 commits May 6, 2021 16:04

[JEP-1] - Rework the JEP review process and sponsor/BDFL Delegate ter…

b02c4fc

…minology

[JEP-1] - Advisor field is optional

02096b3

oleg-nenashev requested review from MarkEWaite, bitwiseman, daniel-beck, jglick and rtyler May 6, 2021 14:21

jglick reviewed May 6, 2021

View reviewed changes

Comment thread jep/1/README.adoc Outdated

Update jep/1/README.adoc

b75841c

bitwiseman requested changes May 6, 2021

View reviewed changes

Apply suggestions from review by @bitwiseman

e9b1aa5

Co-authored-by: Liam Newman <bitwiseman@gmail.com>

oleg-nenashev changed the title ~~[JEP-1] - Rework the JEP review process and sponsor/BDFL Delegate ter…~~ [JEP-1] - Rework the Jenkins Enhancement Proposal review process, follow the Jenkins open governance proess for decision making May 7, 2021

oleg-nenashev changed the title ~~[JEP-1] - Rework the Jenkins Enhancement Proposal review process, follow the Jenkins open governance proess for decision making~~ [JEP-1] - Rework the Jenkins Enhancement Proposal review process to use the Jenkins open governance decision making May 7, 2021

bitwiseman reviewed May 7, 2021

View reviewed changes

Comment thread jep/1/README.adoc Outdated

bitwiseman reviewed May 7, 2021

View reviewed changes

bitwiseman reviewed May 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

Comment thread jep/1/README.adoc Outdated

bitwiseman reviewed May 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

Comment thread jep/1/README.adoc Outdated

bitwiseman reviewed May 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

Comment thread jep/1/README.adoc

oleg-nenashev and others added 2 commits May 9, 2021 00:11

Apply suggestions from code review

ddfcd94

Co-authored-by: Liam Newman <bitwiseman@gmail.com>

Move change history to reasoning

2ce680f

Also tuned the reasoning section to read more smoothly.

bitwiseman reviewed May 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

oleg-nenashev mentioned this pull request Jun 22, 2021

[JEP-16] - Inclusive terminology guidelines and continuous updates #368

Merged

6 tasks

rtyler removed their request for review February 14, 2023 21:55

	e.g. by saying "this JEP might be accepted in 7 calendar days unless there is unaddressed negative feedback".
	e.g. by saying "this JEP will be accepted in 7 calendar days unless there is additional feedback".

Uh oh!

Conversation

oleg-nenashev commented May 6, 2021

Uh oh!

jglick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bitwiseman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bitwiseman May 6, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bitwiseman May 7, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bitwiseman commented May 10, 2021

Uh oh!

oleg-nenashev commented May 13, 2021

Uh oh!

bitwiseman commented Jun 21, 2021

Uh oh!

oleg-nenashev commented Jun 22, 2021

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

bitwiseman May 6, 2021 •

edited

Loading

bitwiseman May 7, 2021 •

edited

Loading