| RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Re: issues |
|
My last comments, somebody else can have
the last word, I need to get back to tracking my Callisto deliverables… Re voluntary, we all recognize Callisto
(as well as our contribution to Eclipse) is voluntary. We’re not
looking to quit Callisto in the face of the challenges, we’re looking to
make Callisto work which means some flexibility since we’re figuring this
out as we go (I’m sure Callisto 2 will be a smoother ride). Re Projects being dropped from Callisto if
they fall behind, we set that consequence in Aug’05 before we defined (1)
the schedule and (2) any real requirements for Callisto. As such, I’d
have a hard time holding a strict line for Projects that might miss some
interim deliverable due to a late/ambiguous requirement, but who have good
intentions (and likelihood) of aligning (we’re not dropping the Eclipse
Platform because their M5a (we could debate whether or not M5 sufficed, but let’s
not, that would ruin my argument and needlessly distract more attention) came
out a week late are we? Or any projects that were dependent on M5a that
subsequently missed their Feb 24 deliverables? No, we’re doing the
right thing despite the Aug edict). Re “API freeze was set
as M5 back in August”, indeed, but in August no date was
set for M5, or any other interim 2006 deliverables. We took a leap of
faith in Aug signing up for Callisto despite no timeline and no
requirements. Despite a few expected glitches here are there resulting
from miscommunication or over-burden, I believe we’re doing the right
things to successfully move Callisto Projects forward. Thanks, -- PS despite TPTP being aligned since M3, if
we do miss our M5 Mar 3 deliverable by a couple days, will you please at least
slow down the train before you toss me off J From:
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). 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". |