Mike,
That's a very valuable $0.02. Thanks!
I think you are right and that the number of released
projects is a better criteria. (And we're not in a hurry.)
We definitely need more experience with the whole process.
I'm going to type a couple of related thoughts that
came to mind when I read your response, just to get them
out there for everyone, while I have a few more minutes.
We discussed the maturity of our projects a bit during the
committee meeting. One of the interesting things about our
projects in Science (ICE, DAWNSci, Chemclipse) is that even
though they are currently incubating they are pretty large,
established and mature from our pre-Eclipse days. The trip
through incubation for these projects is more about
compliance with IP and PMC needs than development of code,
although that is still happening. I think it is safe to say
that we what we are really incubating with this three
projects is the neither the technology nor the governance,
but the IP trail and membership in the project community, or
at least it seems so to me. It looks like the same may be
true for some possible future projects as well, although the
viz project would be close to a completely new effort.
Another thing we discussed is that science projects typically
have strong relationships with the government of the country
where they were written. This presents a whole different set
of issues than, say, pure technology projects. Help with
dealing with these issues could be one really great benefit of
a Science PMC.
