Re: [ecd-tools-wg] Updated ECD Tools WG charter, plus initial member can

[Dave Neary <dneary@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

I have received and integrated another round of comments in the draft WG
definition, I think the time has come to have an initial meeting to
define initial scope, members, and get this moving.

I would like to propose a 1h meeting the week of July 1st, which will
have the following agenda:

1. Initial member commitments to participate in Working Group (please
confirm by email in advance of the meeting your intention to participate
in the working group)
2. Definition of initial technical and marketing goals
 - Technical scope ideas: Definition of a Workspace CRD format,
standardization of running developer tools in containers (eg. debuggers)
 - Marketing scope: Set initial goals for the WG in terms of raising
awareness of Eclipse as a home for modern cloud IDEs
3. Recruit budget sub-committee to define initial budget requirements

I have set up a Doodle poll to decide on a meeting time. Please respond
ASAP - I will send out the meeting invite before the end of the week
with call details.

  https://doodle.com/poll/u7sunghhx66esm5v

Thank you all for your interest!

Regards,
Dave.


On 11/06/2019 09:27, Dave Neary wrote:
> [resending to get this to the list - the first time it got blocked in
> moderation]
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I have *finally* updated the ECD Tools WG draft charter to take into
> account the first round of feedback. The updated draft is here:
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uygw254YUiSqjN5IaLLXK4hiIN5pY-wrQkOag5fDk8I/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> The changes were, for the most part, minor, but reflected concerns
> expressed:
> 
> * Scope has been broadened to allow a number of relevant topics which
> people raised - protocols other than LSP and friends, for things like
> workspace lifecycle management, source control, CI infrastructuer
> * Included a definition for RAD from Nedelcho, potentially including
> things like application modelling in scope
> * Clarification on fee structure. The advice from Mike Milinkovich was
> to set a fee structure of $0 for initial participation, but include a
> requirement that the governing body define a budget and membership fee
> structure for year 2 and beyond, based on goals and resource requirements
> 
> 
> I would also like to invite all those who have not yet joined the
> ecd-tools-wg to do so at this URL:
> https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/ecd-tools-wg - this is where
> all discussion related to the working group will happen.
> 
> While the initial member list is not set, I have had expressions of
> interest in participation from the following companies:
> 
> * Red Hat
> * SAP
> * IBM
> * Progress Software
> * Broadcom
> * Ericsson
> * Typefox
> * ARM
> * Bosch
> * Windriver
> 
> If your company is not listed here, and you are interested in joining as
> a founding member, please let me know, and I will update the list. For
> those companies listed here, please let me know if for some reason you
> would like to be removed from the list, and I will take care of it.
> 
> Thank you all!
> Dave.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Dave Neary - Eclipse Che Ecosystem & Community Manager
Open Source Program Office - Red Hat
E: dneary@xxxxxxxxxx / T: @nearyd / Ph: +1-978-799-3338