[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[stp-pmc] PMC meeting minutes 9may06
- From: Oisin Hurley <ohurley@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:46:02 +0100
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
These are the minutes of the PMC meeting on 9may06
-> Proposal to manage project scope
. Oisin proposed that we manage the potentially huge scope
of the project by developing roles/personae and using them
as places to hook use-cases. This will permit clearer thinking
in context rather than worrying about addressing everyone's
needs. This proposal was made on the stp-pmc list.
. Karl suggests that there needs to be a balance between the
expectation that we are delivering frameworks and delivering
actual functional examples.
. General agreement that there is a level of expectation from
the public and the Eclipse foundation that STP will deliver
both frameworks and tools. General agreement that good frameworks
don't get delivered out of context, that some development of
tools first can increase the relevance hence quality of frameworks
that can be coalesced from the experience.
-> What is going to be in M1, we have enquiries from the press, etc?
. We don't need end-to-end functionality with examples.
. We are good to go once all of the models have been committed
-> assembly model, deployment model, packaging model
. And we have all outstanding issues resolved
-> right now, this is the WTP/DTP connectivity disconnect
. At that point there will be stuff there for people to
tinker with and get familiar
-> Concern over mutability of SCA standard
. SCA standard, SCA assembly in STP and SCA implementation in
Tuscany are all in different places
. There will be non-paradigm-shifting but considerable change
to the assembly model in the standards effort
. We need to put a stake in the ground and say to which version
of the standard we are going to be faithful in principle
. The 1.0 release of the standard is the version to take on
. With the M1 release we make a firm statement that assembly model
will change for a 1.0 version and that we will be claiming our
compatibility on that, so there will be a change in the model.
-> WTP/DTP Connectivity choices
. A number of requirements have been posted to the Eclipse
wiki at . Choose the discussion tab to see the discussions
on these topics. Recommend that you use the 'watch' tab to
put the page in your watchlist.
. We are waiting for a public statement from the WTP PMC
stating that they will be taking on connection profiles,
including ones for non-DB connection - jboss example. This
statement will validate the DTP connection profiles as part
of WTP, hence making it suitable for reuse in STP.
(UPDATE: There is a statement at  it turns out)
. Current code contrib is going through lawyer approval at
-> Karl raised possibility of having a committer call
every two weeks, for high-bandwidth discussion, this call
to have an agenda etc.
. This sounds like a good plan, I will raise it on the dev list
-> Carl raised possibility of adding committers to the project
by having them bring a subproject for incubation, rather than
having a code base to bring with them.
. Implication is that their project will need to go through
the usual project review cycle before it, and it's committers,
can be adopted by STP.
-> A question was raised regarding BPMN/Intalio and the state
of affairs there. Alex Boisvert has not submitted a CQ, and
has been removed from the committers list, he may be reinstated
if a contribution is forthcoming. We will get in contact with
Ishmail/Alex to see with the story is.
-> A question was raised about the status of the BPEL project
invite, Carl reports that Kevin has not responded to any
. We need to close the loop on this with Bjorn and Mike.
. Committer call proposal to dev list : Oisin
. Contact Intalio re: BPMN : Oisin
. Close loop on BPEL invite : Oisin
. Read and comment on requirements at  : EVERYBODY