| Greg,
All good points.
And as the leader of a mature project with years of Eclipse experience, you would make an excellent candidate for PMC Lead :)
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 From: Greg Watson Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 8:25 AM To: Science Industry Working Group Reply To: Science Industry Working Group Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Science Top Level Project |
+1
If we want to build an ecosystem then a top level project is essential. Why? So that, as Philip points out, we can espouse the benefits of joining. Currently we’re asking people to pay money to join the science iwg, but what do they get in return. Also, there are some upcoming opportunities to source funding from the US government, but unless we can demonstrate significant value add it will be very hard to convince them it is a good idea. Finally, I think this would raise the profile of science within the foundation, and help us demonstrate that the technology behind scientific computing can be just as important as other technologies like iot or locationtech.
Greg
Hi Mike, hi Jay,
yep, it would be great if more projects/companies/institutions would
join. Anyhow, we're on a good a way so I think. But an experience I
made when talking to people/projects is that it's not easy to
describe the benefits of joining the Science WG in short words ...
even though we are aware of its benefits. We possibly should discuss
this point to find a better way of advertising our strength.
In a separate mail I will propose three projects I'd really like to
see joining our working group. Maybe others could also make
recommendations :-).
Best,
Philip
Am 07.04.2015 um 22:07 schrieb Jay Jay
Billings:
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.
Jay
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Philip Wenig
http://www.openchrom.net
https://www.xing.com/profile/Philip_Wenig
http://de.linkedin.com/pub/philip-wenig/2a/4a8/877
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________ science-iwg mailing list science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
|
