Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[dsdp-dd-dev] DD Toronto Meeting Follow-up

Hi folks,


Thanks for a great meeting in Toronto two weeks ago.  It’s nice to see things coming together and to see folks stepping up for work.  The main next step for everyone is to kick off discussions on the technology subgroups.


See many of you at EclipseCon,





Minutes and Action Items


Minutes are posted:




Here is the initial committer list, which has been approved by the DSDP PMC.  From here on, all new committer must be voted on by the existing committer community.  Folks with an * next to their name need to let me know when their membership agreements are in place before I can provide commit rights.  For everyone else, you should expect your committer account to be created in the next few days.


Doug Gaff – Wind River

Ted Williams – Wind River

Pawel Piech – Wind River

Paul Gingrich – TI

Chris Recoskie – TI

Samantha Chan – IBM

Darin Wright – IBM

Pete Nichols – IBM

Aaron Spear – Mentor

Ken Ryall – Nokia

Kirk Beitz – Freescale

Ewa Matejska – PalmSource


And as I’ve said several times now, commit rights come with a lot of responsibility on IP due diligence.  Prior to commits to CVS, it would be good to notify the group what you plan to check-in, so we can collectively learn about when IP due diligence is required.


Technology Subgroups


Wiki sandboxes for the technology subgroups are linked off of the main DD page:


From the meeting, here’s how we agreed to proceed on the sub-groups:


·         Leader drives discussions and prototyping on their technology. Leader initiates conference calls, starts a wiki page, collects requirements, and investigates/delegates prototyping. Leader is responsible for making sure the discussion is progressing. Leaders have commit rights to DD.

·         Team members help provide requirements and help prototype.

·         All communications should happen on dsdp-dd-dev mailing list for visibility.

·         By next meeting: Lead should have requirements at minimum, but should also have some prototyping if possible, since having something to look at will generate better feedback.


Below are some open questions.  Thoughts?


1.  Should we create Bugzilla components for each technology subgroup?

2.  How should we setup the sandboxes in the CVS repository?


Back to the top