| Options 1 and 3 sound to me as if you would directly create two new levels ("umbrellas") above the projects (instead of a single top-level project). I personally don't think that this is a good idea as it would create a rigid structure for a quickly evolving space like IoT.
So I would vote for option 2 plus sticking "tags" on the projects like "protocol", "runtime", "tool", etc. in order to categorize the projects in some way.
Regards, Kai
I would like to caution against listing specific project names in the charter. You want a document that stands on its own for a very long time. So I would suggest changing the content of the Protocols, Services and Runtimes, and Tools sections to generically refer to topics, rather than to specific projects.
Agreed.
Actually, I see at least two options for giving some sort of structure to the projects under the TLP, and the current version of the draft is probably not really reflecting any of these: - An option is to create the TLP together with 4 Projects (Communication, Runtimes, Tools, Incubator) right from day 1. These projects would then be structured in sub-projects (e.g Communication/MQTT –which could/would be Paho I guess– , Communication/M3DA, Runtimes/xxx etc.). This has the advantage of enforcing some sort of consistency between the components delivered by the projects (APIs, extension points, …), but has the drawback of forcing a restructuring of the current projects that would arguably be rather heavy (e.g. move under a new namespace).
FWIW this is I think the approach of the Mylyn top-level project, and it works IMO quite well since the projects under Mylyn all deliver both an infrastructure (API and extensions points for doing ALM ) and implementations targeting specific ALM solutions. - Another option is to not give any indication as to what should be the projects under the TLP, and the TLP creation would be done together with a "trivial" move of Paho, Koneki, Mihini (and possibly others) from Technology to the new TLP. This is however not ideal for clarifying what is the TLP about, especially for newcomers or people wondering if the project they want to contribute falls under the TLP or is just "yet another Technology project".
- Well… and maybe there is a 3rd option which is sort of a mix. For Paho and Koneki, if one looks at the scope of these projects in their proposals, they would both be good candidates for being umbrellas directly under the TLP for "everything protocols" and "everything tools", especially since their brand names are well installed. So one could imagine having "Paho/MQTT", "Paho/Modbus", "Paho/Enocean", … and something similar for Koneki (Target Management, Simulator for protocol X, …). Although I am very much aware that Paho is probably seen as "the MQTT project" and Koneki the "Lua IDE project", I also know that because of the way we've been communicating about the projects so far (projects websites, m2m.eclipse.org website, etc), it is quite clear for many people that these projects have a wider scope ; so maybe it would make sense to restructure these two projects to go in that direction.
As far as I'm concerned, I would be in favor of the last option, but that of course requires further discussion with the aforementioned projects… :-)
What are your thoughts on this?
Benjamin--
m2m-iwg mailing list
m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-iwg
|
