[wtp-pmc] Re: Europa CQs 01.11.2007.xls
Anne and Janet, here's our updated spread
sheet from WTP with the individual rankings filled in as you requested.
PMC members, after a bit of back and
forth of me grumbling, Anne and Bjorn convinced me that this individual
a reasonable request we could honor.
It turns out the detailed ranking does not effect so much what they would
do with the rankings, but rather it
only way they could ensure projects
really did think about it, and not just list all their IP requests as "top
Since we had already thought about it,
we'd actually met that requirement, so I pretty much
randomly assigned ranks within each
of our main categories
of our high, med, and low. They assure
me they still plan on getting through all requests ... and this information
is only needed to help prioritize work,
just in case.
Thanks for sending your updated spreadsheet with the WTP
CQ priority info. However, may I ask you to change the way you did the
prioritizing a bit? For ranking the CQs, we need the numbering to go from
1 to N, with 1 being the most important, and N being the least, and N also
corresponding to the number of CQs you have in the spreadsheet (in your
case, I think it would go from 1 to 17 if I have counted right).
Development Process Operations Support
Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:15 AM, David M Williams wrote:
|Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
01/24/2007 09:47 PM
|David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|Janet Campbell <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|Re: Europa CQs 01.11.2007.xls|
Here's the spreadsheet filled in for WTP.
Here's the most salient aspects:
0. I used priorities of 1, 2 or 3, where '1' is most important.
1. The Xerces listing is incorrect ... we actually wanted 2.8.1 for our
maintenance release (we'd need by 2/1 to incorporate in time, or else we'll
make available in later maintenance).
(It is not a "stop ship" issue, though, or you would have heard
more about it before now!).
Instead, we'd like 2.9.0 for Europa (https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1148).
2. ATF will still be in incubation when Europa comes out, so we've lowered
3. The xerces ones are not literally stop ship so we've lowered that priority.
4. The rest are need for Europa and important for our planned function,
so marked them as a '1' priority.
We do hope you get though everything, but also hope our list gives you
a better idea of which to do first.
Let us know if there's anything we can do to help the process move along.
(We are aware some are "awaiting_committer" and are going as
fast as we can :)
----- Forwarded by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM on 01/24/2007 02:57 AM
In preparation for the upcoming Europa release we are soliciting your feedback
so that we can better understand your needs and relative priorities. Attached
you will find a spreadsheet that has a list of all unresolved IPBugs that
have been submitted by projects identified as participants in Europa on:
I'm asking each project to indicate for their project only - (i) whether
the requirement identified in the IPBug is required for Europa, and (ii)
the relative priority of each of the IPBugs requested. Please include
your response in the spreadsheet attached and reply to me with a copy to
We will do our best to get through the IPBugs you identify as requirements
for Europa in time for the release. In order to make this process
manageable however, we will have a cut-off of January 31st to have IPBugs
eligible for consideration. IPBugs submitted after January 31st
will not be eligible for inclusion in Europa.
Legal Counsel & Manager, Intellectual Property
Eclipse Foundation Inc.
Phone: (613) 224-9461, x.229 (GMT -5)
Fax: (613) 224-5172
Alternate email: janet@xxxxxxxxxxx
[attachment "Europa CQs 01 11 2007 v.2.xls"
deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] _______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet