Thanks for the feedback Ian/Mike.
(Was great meeting you at EclipseCon – thanks for organizing)
I understand your concern regarding terminology overlap overlap and the argument that other projects are also supporting enterprise technologies,
but that is a trivial statement: Even a code editor or OSGI as a technology may support an enterprise application at the end, but the focus of those projects is to deliver the respective technologies – which may very well be used for other domains (e.g. embedded
solutions).
The (current) SOA project however has its core focus on Enterprise software/architecture problems and we thought it would be appropriate to express
that.
We were also tempted to simply rename it to “BPM project”, but thought that this would neither cover what Winery does nor would it cover some other
more Enterprise Architecture-related contributions in the future (e.g. services registries, IdP functionality, enterprise portal technologies etc.). I still think it would be desirable to have a top level project for these things and label it that way.
In any event:
Now that you have expressed your dislike or at least concerns regarding our proposal and it also has become clear that it will not be a discretionary
decision by the SOA project leads:
What are you suggesting as an alternative? Because one thing is clear: All current project leads would like to get rid of the SOA label.
Many thanks,
Marc
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Donnerstag, 20. März 2014 14:14
To: Ian Skerrett; Gille, Marc; wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: soa-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Renaming SOA Top Level Project
On 20/03/2014 1:58 PM, Ian Skerrett wrote:
You probably need to consult with Mike and Wayne on the name change. I am not sure what it means for your charter that is approved by the Board.
FWIW, I find the name a bit confusing since we have a lot of technology at Eclipse that is used by the enterprise.
Marc,
I know that I said when we met that the PMC would have a lot of discretion regarding the name, but I do think that this name would not be approved by the Board. The reason is that we care quite a bit that each project and top-level project have a well-defined
scope. This name implies a very wide scope that at least in the minds of some will substantially overlap with other projects.
Also, I am not quite sure that Ian has in mind for the closing session, but the traditional PMC leader panel is definitely _not_ what is going to happen.
My apologies for any confusion I may have caused.