[yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: YP Compatible changes
wmills at ti.com
Fri Jun 13 14:34:08 PDT 2014
Chase has the vote from TI.
However, I would still like clarity / understanding about "or remove it
from the list".
As I said on the call, issues on prior releases may not be fixable with
out effecting existing customers. Yes I trust Richard to be reasonable
but I would still like to see some general principals in writing.
On 06/13/2014 02:57 PM, akuster wrote:
> Sounds good to me.
> - Armin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Osier-mixon, Jeffrey" <jeffrey.osier-mixon at intel.com>
> To: akuster at mvista <akuster at mvista.com>
> Cc: yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org <yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org>
> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: YP Compatible changes
> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:51:48 -0700
> I'm reviving this discussion, as I don't want it to stall out completely.
> Please read this all the way through. If we can't resolve this by
> email, I may call a special meeting of the Advisory Board so we can
> move forward. TLDR summaries are at the top of each section.
> First: YP Compatible and Participant are branding programs.
> I want to remind everyone about the difference between a layer that is
> "compatible" - i.e. one that has technical compatibility with the
> project - and one that meets the criteria of our YP Compatible
> YP Compatible and YP Participant are co-branding programs, not true
> compliance programs. Otherwise, layers, products, or organizations
> would qualify solely on meeting specific criteria, and there would be
> no need for a vote.
> In addition, products can be designated YP Compatible if they are
> built with YP Compatible parts, pass RP's sniff test, and are voted in
> by the Advisory Board. Same goes for private layers.
> The Advisory Board can grant it to anything they want if they can
> convince RP that that thing deserves it. Many items that are quite
> compatible with the project do not qualify for YP Compatible status
> because their sponsoring orgs are not YP members (or open source
> To reiterate - YP Compatible is about branding, period. It is not a
> spec, and you can't conform to it or comply with it.
> If any of this is unclear, please bring it up for discussion now.
> I would like to immediately change the name on the website from
> "Compliance Program" to "Collaborative Branding Program" in the hope
> that we can partly alleviate this misconception.
> In the future, I also believe we should change the name of YP
> Compatible to some other adjective, but that is for a different
> discussion. Let's get through redefining the program first.
> Second - our current system requires too much of RP's time and too
> much Advisory Board time on meaningless votes.
> Right now, all YP Compatible items require new votes whenever they are
> superseded, or whenever YP is released. Richard's technical
> organization is required to weigh in every time, and the Advisory
> Board is required to vote on every change.
> As an example, let's say YP member organization Acme Sillycon has a
> BSP layer called meta-acme that they have submitted for YP Compatible.
> They are a member org and RP approves of their layer, so the board
> votes yes (of course) and they get YP Compatible status for YP 1.10.
> Under the current system, every time there is a meta-acme release OR a
> YP release, they need to reapply and the Advisory Board needs to vote.
> If the layer is released twice a year and YP is released twice a year,
> that is 4 Advisory Board votes per year for this one item.
> Now imagine that Acme has a dozen layers that all need this kind of
> attention. And imagine that there are 20 organizations in the project
> with similar needs. The Advisory Board would do little other than cast
> These are the "rubber stamp" votes that very often come up after a
> release. These votes are a pointless waste of time, especially when
> anyone can complain if they see something amiss. In the program's
> existence since 2012, no one has ever voted against YP Compatible
> status for a layer or product that had that status in the past, and no
> one has ever complained about any other member organization.
> If we were a consortium or some other organization with overflowing
> funds and a thirst for bureaucracy, we could hire someone to create a
> spec and then police everyone to follow that spec. We do not have
> anything remotely like those kinds of resources, particularly not for
> a branding program.
> We are an open source project based on mutual trust, consensus, and
> shared resources that add tremendous value to every one of our
> organizations, not just a few, and we use our limited funds to
> everyone's benefit. Sharing the load makes us all stronger.
> Third - here are the three goals for the proposed change, and the new
> rules that comprise the change.
> I have tried to summarize the proposed new rules for YP Compatible.
> There are three main goals with these changes:
> - to minimize the "rubber-stamp" Advisory Board votes required for each release
> - to offload from the technical team the responsibility for verifying
> each new release
> - to empower the sponsoring organizations with the responsibility for
> maintaining their own branding while keeping overall control with RP
> and the Advisory Board
> To summarize the changes:
> 0 - I will work with RP to create specific guidelines for member orgs
> to follow regarding what can be considered YP Compatible and what
> can't. I will also work on the existing messaging to clarify the
> program better.
> 1 - Going forward, layers or products only need to be voted in once.
> After that, the onus is on the sponsoring organization to make sure
> the layer stays within the guidelines. YP Compatible items from
> non-member orgs will keep the existing rules.
> 2 - Every time YP or the item itself is released, the sponsoring org
> must fill out a form verifying that the YP Compatible item still meets
> the guidelines.
> 3 - If anyone complains that a product or layer does not meet the
> guidelines, RP's organization and I will investigate and recommend
> changes or remove it from the list. It is incumbent on the sponsoring
> organization to fix any problems that arise.
> One potential addition to these rules is to revisit all layers
> periodically, e.g. annually or by some other measure. That would
> negate many of the benefits that these changes are designed to effect,
> though, and I do not recommend it.
> As an aside, I have added a line to each program's questionnaire about
> making sure they have layers listed in the OE layer index, in
> accordance with RP's wishes. I have also added instructions to the
> effect that each applicant should let us know how they are using the
> project and how they are visibly participating.
> I could set up a vote to authorize these changes, but I would rather
> hear from everyone before moving forward. Consensus-based
> decision-making is one of the strengths of the project, so if you have
> specific changes you would like to make or concerns you don't feel are
> being addressed, please bring them up and follow through on the
> discussion so we can get to the next step.
> More comments inline below:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM, akuster at mvista <akuster at mvista.com> wrote:
>> On 05/29/2014 04:58 PM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
>>> This proposal is provided in preparation for discussion at Monday's
>>> Advisory Board meeting.
>>> I have put some thinking in on YP Compatible, as it really needs to be
>>> streamlined and better clarified, and we need to avoid the potential
>>> for many dozens of new, pointless votes. I think we can do both with a
>>> couple of minimal changes to the process.
>>> As only one example, one of our member organizations wants to create
>>> many distros based on their BSP layer. These distros will come from
>>> from several business units, and they want them all to have YP
>>> Compatible status since they are building with components that are
>>> already listed as YP Compatible.
>> How do I know which meta-layers are compatible? The web site does not list
>> many meta layers as being compatible like meta-selinux or
> I think this applies directly to the explanation above that YP
> Compatible is a branding program, not a measure of what works with YP.
> The reason meta-selinux etc. are not listed is because their
> maintainers have not submitted the form to make them so, probably
> because branding is not required for them.
>> It seems to me if a layer has been included in the
>> Yocto repo, it implies compliance. If that layer has been branched to a
>> supported version, then it is compatible for that version.
> This is a very interesting and important point, and I think it bears
> repeating - the repo has nothing to do with the branding program.
> "Compliance" is a term which has no real meaning in YP. Whether a
> layer is listed in the YP git repo, the layer index, or even our
> downloads page has no bearing on whether the owners of that layer can
> use YP branding assets. Those are completely separate issues.
> The only measure of what has YP Compatible status, and can use that
> status in marketing activities, is the registrar
>>> However, if we need to vote on all of
>>> them plus re-vote whenever either the distro or YP bumps versions,
>>> we'll have several dozen pointless votes every year to rubber-stamp
>>> these things.
>>> There are several organizations in a similar predicament, and with new
>>> orgs joining YP all the time, we don't want to have to accommodate
>>> dozens or hundreds of votes each year. I'm not even getting into the
>>> issues in which one of the core maintainers has to examine the
>>> layer/product in question and provide guidance.
>> Just for clarification, are requesters supposed to include their layer or
>> make then public?
> Whether a layer or product is public has no bearing on YP Compatible.
> RP is the final arbiter on the technical side.
> On the business side, only YP member organizations and open-source
> projects (like Angstrom) qualify for this branding program currently.
> We have discussed many times opening it up to non-members, but the
> desire has always been expressed that this program brings value to YP
> membership, so we have kept it as it is.
>>> 2 - Every time the YP version changes, or the layer or project version
>>> changes, the sponsoring org has to let me know (by filling out a form)
>>> so the website can stay current. A special form will be created for
>>> this purpose. This will have to be part of the release process, and
>>> for layers we can also make this an automated way to add items to the
>>> Downloads page on the website.
>> This seems to imply a public layer.
> This automated system would only work for things that go through this
> particular process. Private layers, products, etc. would have a
> different process. The point of this process is that the sponsoring
> organization needs to track whether they are YP Compatible, as the
> project itself does not have the resources to do this.
>>> 3 - If anyone complains about a layer/product being out of spec, the
>>> sponsoring org has to respond within a few days and either propose a
>>> fix or prove that the reporter is wrong.
>>> If neither of those things
>>> happens, the layer/product comes off the list. It can go back on the
>>> list, on probation, if the owner works it out with Richard's technical
>>> organization, but not before.
>>> This gives member orgs full responsibility for their own layers and
>>> products unless someone complains, but still provides a process for
>>> oversight by the YP technical team. I want to keep it as simple, and
>>> as empowering, as possible. This covers all of the contingencies I can
>>> think of, but I'd be grateful if anyone can spot anything I left out.
>> How would a user of a layer know to whom to complain to? is this something
>> that will be required in the README?
> RP can make that a requirement, and I think it would be a good
> decision. In my opinion, every layer should have a maintainer listed
> in a README or MAINTAINERS file.
>>> Once these rules are ratified, I will write up a specific document for
>>> all layer maintainers to use that will cover the release and YP
>>> Compatible process.
>> My 2 cents.
>> It seems to me there may be two paths for Yocto Compatible. If a layer
>> resides in the Yocto repo or at some other public viewing area, it qualifies
>> for automatic compatible renewal once approved . A private layer might
>> required approval every time.
>> MV is going through this process currently. You don't know Me, MV nor have
>> you seen our product/layer to make a decision. Its all about trust. That
>> seems like a harder method of approving someone.
>> well those are my ramblings for now.
> I don't think it makes a difference whether a layer is private or
> public, but it would be interesting to discuss the difference. Keep in
> mind, though, that the point of this change is to put responsibility
> on the sponsoring organization for maintaining their YP Compatible
> thanks all
More information about the yocto-ab