RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Re: issues

["Thessin, Tyler" <tyler.thessin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Re late requirements, we were asked last year to sign up to the Callisto train with very few known requirements.  Subsequently new requirements have popped up (as one would expect considering the effort/challenge we’re confronted with) and expectations were then conveyed that if projects don’t support requirement X by (some near-term) date Y, they’re not on the Callisto train (or at minimum, they’re not good Callisto citizens).

 

We expect new requirements arising from Callisto and we’ll all do our best to accommodate such in a timely fashion, but we are all managing projects to plans put in place a while ago and cannot simply turn on a dime to redirect our efforts to meet some newly emerged requirement.  In these cases, where majority rules adopt new requirements, some consideration should be given to projects intending to adopt, but needing some flexibility in requirement/timing.

 

Some of the late emerging requirements included:

-          API freeze date set at the Dec 15 PC mtg.  We (TPTP) were denigrated for not committing to this new requirement on the spot (through the power of instant messaging, I encouraged such a position via Sri who was attending in my absence) – despite the fact that this timing was inconsistent with our TPTP 4.2 milestones and the fact that we lead a multi-company PMC whose perspectives should be considered for such a decision/impact.

 

-          The “Callisto Requirements” minuted from the Feb 3 Callisto coordination call – these originally surfaced serendipitously and as “must have’s” which caused some initial discontent – later, after discussed in the Callisto call, we agreed some of these were must have’s and some were should have’s and that we would formally adopt as such as requirements (But, even some of the must have’s, if not already planned by projects, would create a potentially difficult (or unmanageable) impact, e.g., ICU4J).

 

Thanks,

 

--tyler

 

---

From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:24 AM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Re: issues

 

We could all whine about how poorly run this has been from the start, unclear or missing requirements that just “materialize” at some late date and we’re all expected to be sitting around waiting to comply, etc. 

That's fair.
Which requirements have materialized that were not discussed by the Planning Council/Callisto leads team?  I was under the impression that each of the requirements that we have set upon ourselves (which means, mostly, you have set upon yourselves because I'm not writing any code for Callisto) were agreed up by at least a majority vote in a Planning Council meeting or call. It would certainly be bad if that were not the case - if, for example, I were just imposing requirements that were not the agreement of the leadership team. I've tried very hard not to do this and I would welcome feedback about how to do better in future.

 

PS There’s a slight risk to our TPTP M5 milestone this Friday, Mar 3.  Final testing is underway and expected to finish Thursday/Friday – not much room for any glitches.

 

Thanks for letting us know.