RE: [wtp-pmc] proposed charter revisions
How about this - the second sentence is new:
"WTP may implement draft standards provided the final version remains consistent with this Charter. Existing or widely adopted versions will
be given preference over an emerging standard."
I believe that our adherence to the Eclipse API policy naturally prevents us from "phasing out" support prematurely. Do you think we need to state that explicitly?
From: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christophe Ney
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:20 AM
To: WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)
Subject: Re: [wtp-pmc] proposed charter revisions
The only point that probably need clarification is evolution of
For instance, in the case of EJB specifications, we want to make sure
that we support
EJB2 before we propose anything regarding EJB3, and that we maintain
EJB1 and EJB2 for a period of time that match application developer
On Jul 19, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Tim Wagner wrote:
> The current Charter is unclear on whether WTP can implement APIs or
> tools that are in the process of being standardized, but for which the
> standard is not yet complete. For instance, EJB 3.0 is still in draft
> form, but no one (to my knowledge) would argue that it's not within
> WTP's scope to work on it. Since standards define much of our
> scope/surface area, this was just to ensure that there are no
> arguments in the future about the state of the standard w.r.t. our
> producing implementations of it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Christophe Ney
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 6:58 AM
> To: WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and
> Group discussions)
> Subject: Re: [wtp-pmc] proposed charter revisions
> Going through my email.... I am not sure to understand the sentence:
> "WTP may implement draft standards provided the final version remains
> consistent with this Charter."
> Can you tell me what the intent is?
> On Jul 19, 2005, at 4:18 AM, Tim Wagner wrote:
>> Attached please find the revised charter proposal for WTP. Please
>> review the changes and let me know if you approve. We need to vote on
>> the final amendments at the PMC level, get initial approval from the
>> EMO (Bjorn and Mike), and then submit the final edits for Board
>> approval. Thanks,
>> There are five conceptual changes:
>> * Clarify that additional (sub) projects may be added to WTP so long
>> as they are consistent with the Charter
>> * Clarify that implementations of draft standards are acceptable so
>> long as the completed standard is consistent with the Charter
>> * Clarify that relevant J2*S*E standards may be implemented when
>> relevant to app development
>> * Move to the standard Charter scheme (most of the boilerplate
>> language replaced by an annotated link)
>> * Explicitly remove data tools from scope
>> Specific edits:
>> Additional projects will be created within the overall Scope where
>> resources and interest allow.
>> J2SE standards (for example, JAX-RPC 2.0) may be implemented by JST to
>> enable Web or J2EE application development.
>> WTP may implement draft standards provided the final version remains
>> consistent with this Charter.
>> Data and database management tools are within the purview of the Data
>> Tools Project (DTP), and as such are outside the scope of WTP,
>> although both projects cooperate in areas where data modeling and
>> application development overlap.
>> Other Terms This Charter inherits all terms not otherwise defined
>> herein from the " Eclipse Standard Charter v1.0". This includes, but
>> is not limited to, sections on the Program Management Committee,
>> Roles, Project Organization, The Development Process, and Licensing.
>> [replaces inlined boilerplate]
>> a wide range of standard languages (for example, HTML, CSS, Web
>> services, etc.) [Removed XQuery and SQL, replacing with CSS]
>> The picture (not shown in attachment) will be modified as follows:
>> * JSF *in* scope
>> * JDO "above the line" but out of scope
>> * SQL out of scope (but still above the line)
>> I would also consider making the picture non-normative if that is
>> supported by others, since it seems to have been the cause of some
>> confusion. Thoughts?
> wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc mailing list