[yocto-ab] Proposal for core development

[akuster]

On 10/05/2016 03:19 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> Following my other email, I think we need a straw man proposal for
> trying to improve the load balancing of the core development of the
> project. All project members are technically required to provide a full
> time development resource. The easiest thing we have to track is recipe
> maintainership.

I like the idea.

>
> Based on these things, I propose that:
>
> a) Each member organisation nominates their developer resource and lets
> Jefro know who this is (likely to become a wiki page).
> b) We form a subgroup for recipe maintainership based on this list.
> This would be a technical subgroup rather than an administrative
> subgroup of the AB. We've not done this before but I think we can have
> a technical subgroup, it may technically report through me as the
> architect but I don't think it matters too much.
> c) I talked with David Cobbley and we've agreed Ross Burton could lead
> and coordinate this subgroup.
> d) The subgroup will determine how exactly to give each developer some
> recipes to maintain.
> e) The subgroup can use the monthly technical calls to coordinate and
> increase the frequency if/as needed to get this rolling
> f) There will be training included on the tools and processes the
> project is using. There will be an open invitation to others for the
> training as I know others are interested in learning more about what we
> have there.
> g) The subgroup monitors its progress and quantifies participation.
> h) Ross reports back to AB meetings on the status of the subgroup.
> i) This "core development" would cover recipes within OE-Core and is
> limited to that scope.
> j) Part of the objective here would be for each maintainer to add ptest
> support to at least one recipe to gain that experience/education.
Shoot for the Moon. What about protectively back porting bug  and 
security fixes?
> k) Philip will raise this with the OE community and see if anyone there
> also wants to step up and join in from the wider community, on the
> understanding there is a commitment here. I suspect that some people
> may find the training from f) and processes useful for their own layers
> even if they don't end up maintaining core recipes.
What happened to the auto updater?
>
> I've left this a little open ended as I'd like the subgroup to have
> power over their own destiny. They are free to raise problems to me or
> the AB and seek advice as needed, or help on decision making if they
> can't reach decisions.
I take this applies only to Master and not to stable branches.

- armin
> I'm open to other ideas, I really want us to have somewhere to start a
> discussion from. How does this sound to people?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard