I am completely fine with this approach. Less paperwork sounds really better J
I will make sure that the Webtools parent tracking data also includes the one for the Libra project.
From: libra-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:libra-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: 09 ÐÐÑÑ 2011 Ð. 16:57 Ñ.
To: Libra developers list
Subject: Re: [libra-dev] Ramp down plan for Indigo
A similar question is if Libra should be "tracked with Parent" in the Simultaneous Release's Portal tracking data. 
The answer is pretty clearly "yes", so I've taken the liberty of marking it that way. But, feel free to disagree if I have missed some reason it shouldn't be, and we can change it back.
One implication is that there is only one set of "tracking data" for all of webtools (such as, only one ramp down plan) . In the tracking grid (2] you can see the difference by comparing 'webtools' with others that do not track as a unit (such as 'tools', 'modeling', or 'technology').
Another implication is that for the release review, we, webtools, would have only one set of docuware, iplogs, etc., for the entire set of aggregated projects.
This aggregated approach is usually much easier for everyone involved and is strongly encouraged by EMO and Planning Council to do as much aggregation within a project as possible, unless there is a reason to keep separate (such as unrelated sub-projects that would have a lot of different answers to the the tracking data). We want the same answers for all webtools subprojects. Of course, there could be some deviations and we'd just note that in the tracking data, but I would not expect many.
Let us know if anyone sees any issues with this approach.
From: "Raev, Kaloyan" <kaloyan.raev@xxxxxxx>
To: Libra developers list <libra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 03/09/2011 02:59 AM
Subject: [libra-dev] Ramp down plan for Indigo
Sent by: libra-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
One of the requirements for the Simultaneous Release is to have the so called âramp down planâ:
âProjects must have a written ramp down policy by M6, at the latest, and provide link. The plan should describe when the project plans to be feature complete, have API frozen, and similar. â
I propose to use the WTP Ramp Down Plan  for the Libra project. For several reasons:
1) Libra is a subproject of WTP J. All other WTP subproject use this ramp down plan. So, letâs be consistent.
2) This ramp down plan proved to work well for years.
3) Even if it might sound a little bit restrictive for an incubating project, I donât think it will affect Libra in a negative way. We donât plan any major changes in Libra for Indigo â we will deliver what we already have as completed contributions with some minor enhancements. Nevertheless, if we need to do any significant change (like API change or late bugfix), according to the ramp down plan we need to communicate this with the WTP PMC â which is always good to be transparent.
Please, take a look the proposed ramp down plan and state your opinion.
Kaloyan Raev | T +359 2 9157-416
SAP Labs Bulgaria | PO LJS for StreamWork
libra-dev mailing list