Re: [technology-pmc] Nexus project

[Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:

[kosta] I think you are reading too much into that statement. IP process is just one aspect and as you say the IP team has been making a lot of improvements. It doesn't matter how you categorize or attribute the rest of the overhead. Overhead is still overhead.

I agree. But I claim that neither Nexus nor the Technology PMC nor any other proposal is going to reduce the inherent overhead in running a project, Eclipse project or other project. So in that sense it does matter how one categorizes the overhead. E.g., the overhead of using source control is inherent: there's nothing that Nexus can do to reduce the cost of check-ins.

My belief is that this startup overhead stays the same regardless of the size of the project.

I disagree. Larger projects (such as E4) clearly have a much larger startup overhead than tiny projects.

It is my firm belief that this right there is one of the primary reasons why we don't see more small projects at Eclipse.

I mostly agree, but I also believe that the overhead you are talking about is due to CQs and not to project proposals.

I want to work towards a push-button system for project creation and provisioning. I can see a "Create Project" link on the Technology Project's home page where people can go with an idea for a project.

That's a pretty neat idea (you should open a bug about it).

 An e-mail is generated to the Architecture Council asking for mentors. What do we do if no one volunteers? Can Technology PMC step in at that point to fill that function?

I think that it would be mistake to say "if nobody in the larger Architecture Council wants to be a Mentor, then we're going to require that the smaller Technology PMC take on that role". (a) The PMC already has a role to play in each project it sponsors and (b) the reason the community added the "need two Mentors from the AC" was to constrain new projects to be only those things that the broader community (as represented by the AC) is interested in.

 

[kosta] I am not seeing logic in that statement. Just because a project is successful does not imply that there is a bucket to put it into.

My claim is that project success *includes* finding a location for the project. Thus a project that cannot find a home is not successful. I realize that's sort of a circular argument, but my point is that Eclipse is more than just a CVS repository: one key goal for Eclipse is that there are communities around each project. If a project cannot find a community then it should go somewhere else.

- Bjorn

--
[end of message]