docs: Roll out DR-002-Proc FEP process across contributor docs by qor-lb · Pull Request #3076 · eclipse-score/score

qor-lb · 2026-07-11T19:10:37Z

Implements the consequences of DR-002-Proc (accepted), which introducesthe Feature & Enhancement Proposal (FEP) process for Feature and major Feature Modification change requests.

Changes:

feature_request.rst rewritten as the living FEP Process Guide, superseding the old TL-circle review guideline: roles, labels, the five process phases with tracking-issue lifecycle, and the FEP template.
change_management.rst: FEP routing added for Feature and major Feature Modification CRs.
software_architecture_overview.rst: references updated to the FEP Process Guide.
project_management.rst: Feature Request definition aligned with the FEP tracking issue (type Feature Request, may parent child Task issues for implementation tracking).

See DR-002-Proc for the decision and rationale.

Refs #3061

github-actions · 2026-07-11T19:15:52Z

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

masc2023 · 2026-07-12T04:47:52Z

+
+A proposal classified as **Breaking Change** must additionally include:
+
+* **Impact Inventory**: explicit list of known integrators, configurations, or customer deliverables that will break


How is that related to this template now? https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/folder_templates/platform/features/feature_name/index.html

You are right that the Breaking Change section doesnt clearly relate to FR template today, but I think the actual problem might be one level up.

The FR template currently serves two different purposes in one file: proposing a change (Motivation, Backwards Compatibility, Rejected Ideas, Open Issues - point-in-time, argument-for-the-change content) and documenting the resulting feature (Abstract, Rationale, Specification, Security/Safety Impact - living, current-state content).

My intent here (not yet fully reflected/settled): separate these explicitly. A Feature Change / FEP record carries the proposal-only content, including Backwards Compatibility, and lives with the change. Feature Documentation stays in docs/features/ with only Abstract, Rationale, Specification, Security Impact, Safety Impact, kept current as the feature evolves. Some headings would appear in both but ask a different question - e.g. Safety Impact of the feature overall vs. Safety Impact of this specific change - so one wouldnt simply reference the other.

This might be bigger than this PR since it touches FT template, used by every existing feature doc. Genuinely open on this - I would like your/the Process Communities read before committing.

Added to the agenda of next Community Meeting
https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2234#discussioncomment-17557191

Implement the consequences of DR-002-Proc (FEP process) across the four affected documents: - feature_request.rst: rewritten as the living FEP Process Guide, superseding the old TL-circle review guideline. Defines roles (Author, Shepherd, Architecture Community), labels, the five process phases with tracking-issue lifecycle, and the FEP template. - change_management.rst: adds FEP routing for Feature and major Feature Modification CRs. - software_architecture_overview.rst: updates references from the old guideline to the FEP Process Guide. - project_management.rst: aligns the Feature Request definition with the FEP tracking issue (type Feature Request, allowed as a parent to child Task issues for implementation tracking). Assisted-by: Claude:claude-sonnet-5

masc2023 · 2026-07-13T06:45:14Z

+  ```{dec_rec} <Short imperative title>
+  :id: dec_rec__<arch|proc|strat|infra|int>__<slug>
+  :status: draft
+  :tracking: <GitHub issue URL, required once a Shepherd is confirmed>


Template can be updated with this new attribute, so finally there should no specific addition, it may also be required in general, will be implemented here, eclipse-score/process_description#744

aschemmel-tech

I have a hard time to understand this, need to re-review at a later time

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-16T13:58:38Z

-This Guideline is based on or references following documents:
+.. _feature_request_guideline:
+
+This guide describes how to propose a **Feature & Enhancement Proposal (FEP)** in S-CORE. FEPs are


propose a proposal?

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-16T14:00:57Z

 :need:`[[title]] <gd_req__change_tool_impact_analysis>`

+
+The Decision Record Track (FEP Process)


Why does it need a new name? Below it is for example termed "FEP track"

aschemmel-tech

now I re-reviewed all

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-17T13:50:02Z

+community needs a structured way to reach agreement before implementation starts, rather than
+relying on a single Committer's review. For these, **Analyze** is specialized into the **FEP
+process**: a Shepherd sponsors the proposal, a time-boxed Final Comment Period
+(silence-as-approval) replaces open-ended review, and the outcome is recorded as a Decision Record


maybe better instead "replaces open-ended review" write "fosters quick decision making"

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-17T13:54:57Z

+a judgment call made by the responsible :need:`Committer <rl__committer>` at the time the change is
+proposed, including changes proposed directly as a PR without a prior FEP. A change can be waived
+from the FEP process by community agreement if it is judged not to warrant it, or pulled into the
+FEP process after the fact if a maintainer judges it major.


Is the "maintainer" role defined somewhere?

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-17T13:57:36Z

+FEP process after the fact if a maintainer judges it major.
+
+**Component** and **Component Modification** change requests currently go through the standard
+Analyze step and are not routed onto the FEP track.


Is this true? I understood it differently when I was talking to @masc2023

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-17T14:09:10Z


+For Change Requests routed onto the :ref:`Decision Record Track <change_mgmt_plan>`, this step is
+performed as described in the :ref:`FEP Process Guide <feature_request_guideline>` instead: a
+Shepherd, not a single Committer, guides the analysis, and the review window is the time-boxed


the "review window"? Maybe "the review ends in the time-boxed Final Comment Period and not in an open-ended "in review" state?

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-17T14:36:33Z

+.. _feature_request_guideline:
+
+This guide describes how to propose a **Feature & Enhancement Proposal (FEP)** in S-CORE. FEPs are
+not a separate change process: they specialize the Analyze step of the standard Change Request


bettter describe what they are: "a part of the change process (see link) and they refine the Analyze step..."

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-17T14:37:39Z

+<change_mgmt_plan>` — for *Feature* change requests and *Feature Modification* change requests with
+major impact, for example changes affecting the platform or other Feature Teams.
+
+It supersedes the previous ad hoc Feature Request review (GitHub label plus weekly Technical Lead


I would rather describe only what is and not what it supersedes.

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-17T14:40:16Z


-Feature Request Guideline
-##############################
+Feature & Enhancement Proposal (FEP) Process


Note that the "parent document" docs/contribute/contribution_request/index.rst talks about "Feature Requests are the heart of our evolution" - maybe add there also a reference to the "FEP Process"

qor-lb requested review from a team, PandaeDo, aschemmel-tech, masc2023 and pahmann as code owners July 11, 2026 19:10

github-project-automation Bot added this to S-CORE Roadmap and TLC - Technical Lead Circle Jul 11, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Backlog in S-CORE Roadmap Jul 11, 2026

masc2023 requested changes Jul 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

qor-lb force-pushed the qor-lb_fep_rollout branch from 4ef9140 to e8953f9 Compare July 12, 2026 14:46

qor-lb force-pushed the qor-lb_fep_rollout branch from e8953f9 to 1c044ce Compare July 12, 2026 16:15

qor-lb requested a review from arsibo July 12, 2026 16:17

masc2023 reviewed Jul 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

FScholPer approved these changes Jul 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

qor-lb mentioned this pull request Jul 14, 2026

Update feature template and issue template in process_description to implement FEP usecase #3085

Open

aschemmel-tech requested changes Jul 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

aschemmel-tech requested changes Jul 17, 2026

View reviewed changes


		A proposal classified as Breaking Change must additionally include:

		* Impact Inventory: explicit list of known integrators, configurations, or customer deliverables that will break

		:need:`[[title]] <gd_req__change_tool_impact_analysis>`


		The Decision Record Track (FEP Process)

Uh oh!

Conversation

qor-lb commented Jul 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 11, 2026

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech Jul 16, 2026 • 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!

aschemmel-tech Jul 16, 2026 • 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!

aschemmel-tech left a comment

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!

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!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

qor-lb commented Jul 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aschemmel-tech Jul 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aschemmel-tech Jul 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading