[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [technology-pmc] Do we really need the SOC project?
|
When I was first introduced to the Technology Project, it was described
as an incubator. It was envisioned as a place for projects to get
started before eventually moving to a more permanent home as they reach
a reasonable level of maturity. Over time, as other projects started
accepting new projects (and overlapping with the initial intent of the
Technology project), we became a place for projects that don't have a
tidy categorization elsewhere. I sort of like the "Emerging Technology"
nature of the project. Perhaps that might be a better name...
I agree that the name is confusing (most of the entries in the newsgroup
are about Eclipse platform technology).
Wayne
Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
Wayne Beaton schrieb:
Thoughts, ideas, concerns? Am I missing something important?
If we go down that path then we really should rename Technology to
Sandbox or Incubator. Otherwise it just gets confusing.
I think it's important to have something like an explicit sandbox or an
incubator. The name "Technology" is misleading to people.
If the problem really is getting initial committers for a sub-project
then the development process should be revised. The last update already
made components to sub-projects. It is already possible to create new
projects with new initial committers. Maybe this should also be possible
for sub-projects.
We already have incubators for a lot projects. A possibility would be to
grant incubators an exclusive option which would allow to create
sub-project in an incubator project with new initial committers.
-Gunnar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
