RE: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS

[Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>]

BTW, if I'm not being clear, I am rejecting a).

The Tools project itself struggles from the lack of cohesion, an incubator
subproject would be abysmal. You really need something in common with each
other to make it work. 

b) is the way to go. We just need to make sure we're allowed to run the
parallel IP process on components. Bjorn sounded pretty positive in his last
statement on the idea.

Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Nick Boldt
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: Tools PMC mailing list
> Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS
> 
> Seems like there are two options that would allow parallel ip and
> satisfy the issues of governance. Given that it is perfectly legal to
> have:
> 
>   Top-Level Project > (Sub)Project > Component(s)
> 
> The options I see are:
> 
> a) Tools > Tools Incubator Project > VE Incubator Component
> 
> (whole Tools Incubator project is incubating w/ the egg and such, and
> includes one or more components a la Modeling.EMFT)
> 
> b) Tools > VE Project > VE Incubator Component(s)
> 
> (VE splits into components -- a "Core" component for the current
> stuff, and one or more incubator components to allow contributions to
> be segregated (in terms of IP cleanliness and also
> committership/access).)
> 
> I'd suggest (b) as it would require minimal watchdoggin by the Tools
> PMCs; it would however, imply that Philippe is the Tools.VE PMC, in
> the same way that Modeling has its PMCs and Modeling.MDT has its PMC
> too.
> 
> Provided that this promotion of status is acceptable, that seems the
> best approach IMHO.
> 
> If it is not, then (a) becomes preferrable but it will require more
> hands-on contact from the newly minted Tools Incubator Project PMC(s).
> Who those person(s) might be is another issue. ;-)
> 
> $0.02,
> 
> Nick
> 
> On 10/22/07, Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Philippe, we are all volunteers here. Patience will get you farther than
> > confrontation.
> >
> > We still need to get approval from the EMO that we can have components
> as
> > incubators. Like it or not, VE is the test case for this.
> >
> > I have to reject all other options though:
> > - You can not have a sub-project under VE. VE already is a sub-project
> of
> > Tools and my understanding is that sub-projects can't have sub-projects.
> > - I will not support an incubator project under Tools where the code is
> > actually managed by an existing project. We don't have the PMC manpower
> to
> > keep an eye on it. And it will only confuse your efforts to build up the
> VE
> > community.
> >
> > At the very least, you can start by getting the contribution into
> Bugzilla
> > so you can start the IP process. People can get a copy of it from there.
> > We've done that plenty of times in other projects.
> >
> > Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> > Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne
> > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:05 PM
> > > To: 'Tools PMC mailing list'
> > > Subject: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > > All:
> > > At that stage I would appreciate that we keep focused on my initial
> > > request.
> > > So I am start a new thread.
> > > I begin to be utterly confused but not yet hopelessly. VE is an all
> > > volunteer project, so have some mercy.
> > >
> > > The only thing we need (for VE at least) is some flexibility:
> > > VE Committers have expressed their whish to keep the current core code
> > > base
> > > and project as is, not move back to incubation. I shall respect that.
> > >
> > > We have new contributions comming from serious, law-abiding
> individuals
> > > and
> > > organizations, and I want to keep up our fledgling momentum.
> > >
> > > I can do it several ways:
> > > -1/ an incubating component (a novel approach) would be preferred.
> > > -2/ an incubating project under VE.
> > > -3/ a tools incubator
> > > -4/ a complete separate project.
> > >
> > > I am not asking asking for a discussion, but a simple answer on 1, 2,
> 3 or
> > > 4
> > > so I can move on.
> > >
> > > Cordially
> > > --
> > > Cheers
> > > Philippe
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers
> > > Philippe
> > >
> > > philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
> > > nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com
> > > http://easyeclipse.org - http://phpeclipse.net -
> http://eclipse.org/atf -
> > > http://eclipse.org/vep - http://labs.jboss.org/drools/ -
> > > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XULRunner
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tools-pmc mailing list
> > > tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
> > _______________________________________________
> > tools-pmc mailing list
> > tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
> >
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc