RE: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS

[John Duimovich <John_Duimovich@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree. 

My preference is to create a component
as part of the VE project which is in incubating mode. We need to verify
that the incubation status is allowable for components and that they can
benefit from the parallel IP process in this mode.

If the above is not allowed, I would
be willing to have a Tools incubator despite the potential for abysmal'ness
(thanks Doug). The upside is it fits within the current model, the Eclipse
foundation tools will work and the worries about  process for graduation,
IP reviews would be the same as other projects.  Since our first incubator
would be VE components, the project lead for the incubator would naturally
be Philippe,
having the only incubator project. 

John

Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/22/2007 03:03 PM

Please respond to
Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	RE: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS

Of course the rest of the Tools PMC is free to take
a stand and we can duke
it out.

Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:01 PM
> To: Tools PMC mailing list
> Cc: Bjorn Freeman-Benson
> Subject: RE: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS
> 
> BTW, if I'm not being clear, I am rejecting a).
> 
> The Tools project itself struggles from the lack of cohesion, an incubator
> subproject would be abysmal. You really need something in common with
each
> other to make it work.
> 
> b) is the way to go. We just need to make sure we're allowed to run
the
> parallel IP process on components. Bjorn sounded pretty positive in
his
> last
> statement on the idea.
> 
> Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Nick Boldt
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:45 PM
> > To: Tools PMC mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS
> >
> > Seems like there are two options that would allow parallel ip
and
> > satisfy the issues of governance. Given that it is perfectly
legal to
> > have:
> >
> >   Top-Level Project > (Sub)Project > Component(s)
> >
> > The options I see are:
> >
> > a) Tools > Tools Incubator Project > VE Incubator Component
> >
> > (whole Tools Incubator project is incubating w/ the egg and such,
and
> > includes one or more components a la Modeling.EMFT)
> >
> > b) Tools > VE Project > VE Incubator Component(s)
> >
> > (VE splits into components -- a "Core" component for
the current
> > stuff, and one or more incubator components to allow contributions
to
> > be segregated (in terms of IP cleanliness and also
> > committership/access).)
> >
> > I'd suggest (b) as it would require minimal watchdoggin by the
Tools
> > PMCs; it would however, imply that Philippe is the Tools.VE PMC,
in
> > the same way that Modeling has its PMCs and Modeling.MDT has
its PMC
> > too.
> >
> > Provided that this promotion of status is acceptable, that seems
the
> > best approach IMHO.
> >
> > If it is not, then (a) becomes preferrable but it will require
more
> > hands-on contact from the newly minted Tools Incubator Project
PMC(s).
> > Who those person(s) might be is another issue. ;-)
> >
> > $0.02,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Philippe, we are all volunteers here. Patience will get
you farther
> than
> > > confrontation.
> > >
> > > We still need to get approval from the EMO that we can have
components
> > as
> > > incubators. Like it or not, VE is the test case for this.
> > >
> > > I have to reject all other options though:
> > > - You can not have a sub-project under VE. VE already is
a sub-project
> > of
> > > Tools and my understanding is that sub-projects can't have
sub-
> projects.
> > > - I will not support an incubator project under Tools where
the code
> is
> > > actually managed by an existing project. We don't have the
PMC
> manpower
> > to
> > > keep an eye on it. And it will only confuse your efforts
to build up
> the
> > VE
> > > community.
> > >
> > > At the very least, you can start by getting the contribution
into
> > Bugzilla
> > > so you can start the IP process. People can get a copy of
it from
> there.
> > > We've done that plenty of times in other projects.
> > >
> > > Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> > > Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:05 PM
> > > > To: 'Tools PMC mailing list'
> > > > Subject: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS
> > > > Importance: High
> > > >
> > > > All:
> > > > At that stage I would appreciate that we keep focused
on my initial
> > > > request.
> > > > So I am start a new thread.
> > > > I begin to be utterly confused but not yet hopelessly.
VE is an all
> > > > volunteer project, so have some mercy.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing we need (for VE at least) is some flexibility:
> > > > VE Committers have expressed their whish to keep the
current core
> code
> > > > base
> > > > and project as is, not move back to incubation. I shall
respect
> that.
> > > >
> > > > We have new contributions comming from serious, law-abiding
> > individuals
> > > > and
> > > > organizations, and I want to keep up our fledgling
momentum.
> > > >
> > > > I can do it several ways:
> > > > -1/ an incubating component (a novel approach) would
be preferred.
> > > > -2/ an incubating project under VE.
> > > > -3/ a tools incubator
> > > > -4/ a complete separate project.
> > > >
> > > > I am not asking asking for a discussion, but a simple
answer on 1,
> 2,
> > 3 or
> > > > 4
> > > > so I can move on.
> > > >
> > > > Cordially
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Philippe
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Philippe
> > > >
> > > > philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne
at nexb.com
> > > > nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com
> > > > http://easyeclipse.org - http://phpeclipse.net -
> > http://eclipse.org/atf -
> > > > http://eclipse.org/vep - http://labs.jboss.org/drools/
-
> > > > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XULRunner
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > tools-pmc mailing list
> > > > tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tools-pmc mailing list
> > > tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tools-pmc mailing list
> > tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc