[wtp-pmc] Status of adding incubating project members as committers to w

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

End of long story: The EMO (via Bjorn)
doesn't consider this any differently (currently) than any other committer
for any other component. Meaning, we would have to go through the whole
WTP "nomination/vote" cycle for these folks, to give them access
to WTP ... and, technically, that should be for their history and contributions
to WTP, not just because we are incubating them as a project. I can see
some merit to this view, though, obviously, arguments could be made for
different rules for incubating projects ... but .. so far, there are no
different rules. 

So, there's two options I can think
of. I have a preference for the second one, but am open to any solution.


1. Continue status quo: they provide
patches to our build files and map files and Naci continues to coach them
on "how to do it", as he has been. This would continue until
they graduate from incubation, and become components or sub-projects of
WTP. 

2. Someone (Naci? Jeffrey?) apply some
effort to improve the "portability" of our build process and
those projects build their own code using identical methodology *AND* that
same person improve our "cascading build" methodology, so once
WTP build is done, JSF, et. al. would automatically "pick up"
the latest build and build their stuff. And, of course, this would still
require the mentoring and "how to" coaching that needs to take
place in either case. 

Part of the reason I recommend the second
option is that we ourselves need to improve our "cascading build"
ability, so that, for example, we can easily and automatically get the
latest build of our pre-reqs to build against. So, us doing it for "downstream"
projects would not be totally "extra" effort, and might improve
the overall process. Jeffrey has done some of this for testing, but I personally
have not looked to see how he's doing it, or how much work would be involved
in transposing it to cascaded builds (instead of cascaded tests). 

Can anyone think of other options? 

Perhaps we could discuss/decide at next
PMC meeting? 

Thanks,