RE: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS

[Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The desire for focus/decision is understandable
but first we need the facts.

I can confirm/second the fact that option
#1 (incubating *component*) will not work under the current IP Policy.
 We had exactly this situation in Eclipse with the Equinox, PDE and
Platform "incubators".  When parallel IP came around (a
major advance and improvement BTW) we created an Incubator project and
moved the "incubator" components.

Some context.  First, this situation
was NOT created by the EMO.  The board in all its wisdom of days of
yore setup the IP policy with a clear and focussed eye on the IP integrity
of the software consumed from Eclipse releases.  This has been an
absolutely massive win for the eco-system.  As Eclipse has evolved
and there are more and more people, projects, ideas, domains, ... coming
to Eclipse, the original policy was strained.  Enter parallel IP.
 There was a broad discussion about parallel IP to resolve a number
of issues.  While folks liked the idea, there was concern that loosening
the rules for what the public sees as "stable, industrial strength,
commercial-ready" projects was a road to very visible disaster.  
The board was and is acting in what is saw/sees as the best interests of
Eclipse (the whole thing).  That is their job.

Enter the happy coincidence that Bjorn
and others were evolving the development process to identify "incubation"
more clearly.  Given the impass over parallel IP for released projects,
someone (me) observed that if we limited the parallel IP mechanism to the
newly defined incubating projects, the risks could be mitigated and much
of the value retained.  This was an incremental step that has greatly
improved the situation we were in just one year ago.

What we are seeing now is a symptom
of our success -- the need to facilitate more people and contributions.
 This is great!  As the board becomes more comfortable with the
ideas and mechanisms around parallel IP there may well be evolutions in
the IP policy to allow for broader application.  That is not the situation
of today.  Given that, I suggest that we 
- enter the abyss and and make a Tools
Incubator and add VE as a component.
- ask Philippe to drive both the creation
of the incubator and the VE component
- allow the VE incubator to use the
existing VE mailing lists and newsgroups
- encourage the VE incubator to use
a distinct bugzilla bucket for incubation bugs
- require all incubating code in the
repo be in an "incubator" folder 
- allow for incubation code to "graduate"
from the tools.incubator.ve component to the tools.ve.xxx component as
needed (subject to move reviews as needed)
- seek to adapt/modify/eliminate this
structure if the parallel IP policy is expanded

Jeff

Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/22/2007 04:45 PM

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

To	Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject	RE: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS

Doug,

If you think you're frustrated after just one day, just imagine my
frustration having spent several months trying to get the rules changed
at
the board level.  As you can imagine, the rules for IP cleanliness
are
considered sacred; I do agree that they are one of the distinguishing
features of Eclipse that makes it so valuable to commercial consumers.
Based on this experience, I can imagine that an incubating component in
"mature" project is just not going to be acceptable without the
actual rule
changes the committer reps (not just me) have been advocating.  I'd
love to
be wrong, but if I am, I have to wonder why trying to change the rules
has
proven so difficult.

Note that at the time EMFT was created, the problem was actually a
different one; there was no parallel IP process back them.   The problem
was that projects had no substructure, so I could not partition the
committers into the separate components over which they had control.  I
wasn't comfortable just adding people to EMF; like Mik says, I wanted to
set a high bar.  But now we have components and I'm pretty happy with
the
structure.  I was planning on eliminating EMFT (which was in Technology
while EMF was in Tools) when the Modeling PCM was formed, until the
parallel IP process was introduced and was defined to apply only to
conforming incubating projects.  So I've had to keep EMFT alive.  I'd
be
just as happy without it...

I hope nothing I've done is interpreted as anything other than an attempt
to help Philippe build a diverse and vibrant community...


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)




                    
                     
                     
          
             Doug Schaefer    
                     
                     
             <DSchaefer@xxxxxx  
                     
                    
             m>        
                     
                     
    To 
             Sent by:      
           Tools PMC mailing list  
           
             tools-pmc-bounces    
    <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>        
    
             @eclipse.org      
                     
                  cc 
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
  Subject 
             10/22/2007 04:27    
     RE: [tools-pmc] VE incubator -      
             PM        
               FOCUS    
                     
    
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
             Please respond to    
                     
                  
             Tools PMC mailing    
                     
                  
                   list  
                     
                     
     
             <tools-pmc@eclips  
                     
                    
                  e.org>
                     
                     
      
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          




At this point, I give up...

Ed, if you're happy for the rules to be different, why didn't you try to
change them when EMFT was created? That's all I'm trying to do here.

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 Ed Merks
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: Tools PMC mailing list
> Cc: Tools PMC mailing list; tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS
>
> John,
>
> Bjorn has talked about bending the rules, but as far as I understand
the
> rules and how they've applied to every other project so far (and EMF/EMFT
> in particular), a component can only take advantage of parallel IP
if it
> is
> in a conforming incubating project.  A conforming incubating
project has
> all downloads clearly marked as incubating and displays the little
> incubating egg on its pages.  I think only options 3 and 4 fall
within
the
> rules as they have been interpreted and enforced to date.   It's
be happy
> for the rules to be different, but that's why I have an EMFT project
and
> that's why the Platform and WTP created incubating projects...
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265  (t/l 969)
>
>
>
>
>
>              John
>              Duimovich/Ottawa/
>              IBM@IBMCA
To
>              Sent by:    
             pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx,
Tools PMC
>              tools-pmc-bounces
        mailing list
>              @eclipse.org  
           <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
cc
>                    
                   "'Tools
PMC mailing list'"
>              10/22/2007 04:02  
       <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>              PM      
                 tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
Subject
>                    
                   Re:
[tools-pmc] VE incubator -
>              Please respond to
        FOCUS
>              Tools PMC mailing
>                    list
>              <tools-pmc@eclips
>                   e.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philippe
>
> Thanks for persevering.
>
> My vote is +1 on #1 below ... I clarified which project the component
> would
> be a member of below to make it clear it was a component of VE.
>
> -1/ an incubating component within VE (a novel approach) would be
> preferred.
>
> I will consult with the EMO if this is allowed within the current
> incubator
> framework
>
> John
>
>
>
>  "Philippe Ombredanne"
>  <pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx>
>  Sent by:
To
>  tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx          
        "'Tools PMC mailing
>                    
                     
       list'"
>                    
                     
       <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>  10/22/2007 02:05 PM
cc
>
>
Subject
>            Please respond to  
                  [tools-pmc]
VE incubator
>      pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx; Please      
        - FOCUS
>                respond to
>          Tools PMC mailing list
>         <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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