David captured this well – there is
and why. My understanding:
be clear, this is a *component*
not a (sub) project. There is therefore no formal community proposal or
review. As you pointed out there are some wording mistakes that we would clear
up before sharing this via email/newsgroups/newsfeeds/etc.
would incubate this under the ATF sub-project because of staffing and
placement is legitimate from a process perspective.
component would ultimately reside in WST post graduation, as David says
below, and is covered by the existing WTP charter (in fact, it replaces
existing functionality, so there is no effective change in practical
scope, just improvements in exemplary tool and API quality).
and initial release for this proposed component are likely beyond Europa.
David or Robert, if you think I’ve
mis-captured anything we discussed, please correct. Thanks,
wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006
To: WTP PMC communications
(including coordination, announcements,and Group discussions)
Cc: Anne Jacko
Subject: Re: FW: [wtp-pmc]
Thanks Bjorn ... I think your right about the wording
and scopes ... so, I'll explain a bit more, and acknowledge that we (WTP PMC)
may need to discuss more, to be sure we have all been discussing the same
thing. What I have thought we (WTP PMC) have been discussing with the ATF
of WST. Turns out this is no simple "addition", but a huge effort
that deserved "new contribution" effort of having their own team lead,
committers, etc. And ... I thought we (WTP PMC ) had been in agreement that
within our scope.
does this adequately account for your concerns? Or are you saying that even as
a component under WTP it should have a creation review?
this does account for your concerns, then I think we in the WTP PMC and ATF
project just have to make sure we are all in agreement that this is what we
have been discussing, get straight on terminology (e.g. change 'project' to
'component', or ... "effort" :) and get clear on how best to
position and promote this WST component level work.
12/13/2006 11:58 AM
"WTP PMC communications \(including coordination, announcements,
and Group discussions\)"
"and Group discussions) WTP PMC
communications (including coordination announcements"
Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
You have all the steps correct HOWEVER the statement "a description of the
project" worries me because components are not projects. Components do not
release independently. Components have a lead, but they are not managed
independently. And wiki page about this (http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/ATF/JSDT)
reads like this is a full blown Project. The plan for the component does not
discuss its integration with the ATF project at all. Etc.
Additionally, does this component fit inside the scope defined for ATF? The
scope for ATF says: "The AJAX Toolkit Framework (ATF) provides and
extensible framework and exemplary tools for building IDEs for the many
runtime offerings (Dojo, Zimbra, Rico, etc) in the market. Tools built upon
an embedded Mozilla web browser; an embedded DOM browser; and an embedded
with full support for editing, refactoring,
also be extensible such that new language features can easily be added."
This appears to be an extension to the original scope. If so, it needs to be
announced to the entire membership in a public way (i.e., a Review).
P.S. Additionally, the ATF web pages do not include the Board-required
statement that this is an Incubation project.
Tim Wagner wrote:
Please see the new component creation
request from Craig below. Apart from CVS setup and our own WTP-level
administrative issues, what else do we need to do to make this official?
wtp-pmc mailing list