Tyler,
These are good points. I'd like to try to reply with my view and I hope
that others can add their views as well.
Re late
requirements, we were asked last
year to sign up to the Callisto train with very few known requirements.
This is true, but it's also true that participation in Callisto is
entirely voluntary on the part of each project. Of course if the
Platform or JDT or EMF were to chose not to participate, it would
certainly be more difficult for the downstream projects to participate.
For projects like BIRT and TPTP and WTP (the leaf projects), if you
feel that the requirements are overly onerous or that your situation is
not being taken into account by the majority of the Callisto project
management team (this mailing list), then you are welcome to withdraw.
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).
I apologize if I mis-conveyed the consensus of the Callisto team. I
understood the requirements for Callisto from day one, when we first
discussed this at the Planning Council meeting in August (see
the minutes), that this dire consequence (being dropped if you fall
behind) was the chosen one. If that is not what the Callisto team
wants, then we (not me) can change that. I will add that issue to
Friday's conference call agenda.
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.
I think this is an excellent point and I will update the Callisto page
to include a statement along those lines.
-
API
freeze date set at the Dec 15 PC mtg. We (TPTP) were denigrated for
not
committing to this new requirement on the spot ...
The API freeze was set as M5 back in August (see
minutes of meeting; TPTP was represented).
-
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 ..., e.g., ICU4J).
Again, I thought I
was representing the will of the Callisto team. Please remember that
Callisto is not my project, nor is it the Foundation's project.
Callisto was brought forth as an idea by the project teams (see the
minutes of the May
Planning Council). I am willing to push and coordinate and annoy
and please people to help make it happen, but it's happening must be
the will and the consensus of the teams involved. (I am also happy, if
I've pissed off too many people, to step aside.) (And I'm happy to
accept criticsm of my communication style.) If the teams involved, the
teams that have signed up, collectively agree that ICU4J is part of the
requirements, then it is. If the teams collectively agree that it is
not, then it is not. It's not "Bjorn says this or Bjorn says that" -
it's "the ten leaders (Kevin, Tyler, Wenfend, John, Dave, Steve, Doug,
Ed, Rich, and Tim) who say this or that".
So, I apologize for being rude to John, Dave, and Randy in my previous
email. The "too important" was uncalled for. But the fact is that this
Callisto effort needs more communication from and to each other on the
Callisto team. And if the previous commitments we have made to each
other (as described in the various meeting minutes) are no longer
correct, then they should be revised rather than just ignored.
- Bjorn
|
