[wtp-proposal] RE: Logistics for Code Camp

[Naci Dai <naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My understanding was similar.  I was under the impression that this
would be a code-camp.  I gues that would also kick things off
:-)


At 06:59 PM 5/14/2004, Arthur Ryman wrote:

Christophe,

I suggested the June meeting to review the code contributions. In our discussions we agreed that the next step was a code camp, so this idea of a kickoff meeting to define a shared project vision is news to me.

It is not a good use of my entire team's time to meet if there is no code to review. If you believe we need a project vision/design meeting, then we should have a much smaller and focused group.

Topics like the project structure or a new editor architecture don't require 30 people in a room. I'd appreciate it if you could propose a concrete agenda and list of discussion topics so I can determine who from my team should attend.

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/


"Christophe Ney" <christophe.ney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

05/14/2004 11:17 AM

To

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Dominique DE VITO" <dominique.devito@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <henrik.lindberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jkrause@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "John Wiegand" <John_Wiegand@xxxxxxxxxx>, <mitch.sonies@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

cc
Subject

RE: Logistics for Code Camp




Hi Arhur,
 
I understand that you are pushing for all to get to coding , which is good.
However, building a shared vision is very important for the project to become the
extensible platform we aim at. I would like this kick-off meeting to be first a
design session and then a way to get our hand on code we'll have to review.
I beleive it will be the most efficient way to get a coherent and successful project..
 
I don't think I am the only one to share this view, am I?
 
Thanks,
Christophe
-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: vendredi 14 mai 2004 16:44
To: Dominique DE VITO
Cc: bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx; cney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; henrik.lindberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; jkrause@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; John Wiegand; mitch.sonies@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Logistics for Code Camp


Dominique,

My understanding was that the June meeting was the code camp. We already have identified code contributions. We are not building WTP from scratch. If you read the newsgroups, you will clearly see that the potential users of the tools like the proposed contributions and want them asap. The individuals who would also contribute testing, bug fixing, etc. want to get code.

The goal of the June meeting should be for the contributors to evaluate the contributions and make decisions about what to include, and how to merge where overlap exists. This will define our starting point, or Milestone 0. Then we should plan how to evolve that into our shared vision.

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/

Dominique DE VITO <dominique.devito@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

05/14/2004 10:27 AM

To

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA

cc

cney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx, John Wiegand <John_Wiegand@xxxxxxxxxx>, naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, henrik.lindberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mitch.sonies@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jkrause@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject

Re: Logistics for Code Camp






 
Arthur,

I personnaly think that code examinations, if any, must take place at the end of the kick-off meeting (if such meeting is enabled through a positive vote of Eclipse board).

We have to think before, for example, of the Best practices in order to make Web Tools happen and in particular, how cooperation could be organized between the different organizations and people.

Moreover, if such meeting happens, I strongly feel that this meeting has to send different signals. The first signal is that things have started!

The second signal may be even more important. We have to choose carefully on what we will focus on when starting the project. We will have to select carefully our first works.

I feel we will have to put first onto the table some open and attractive pieces of work.

Because the second signal should be this one: yes, we have started and we are opening the doors, through open stuff. We want that everyone feels he/she has a chance to participate.

Such first pieces of work might be Project Model and generic mixed-content Editor. So, when people would see these pieces of work, we want that they think: "yes, this is valuable and useful stuff and I want to be part of this interesting project and I feel I can because it is done in an open manner!"

Following that point of view, code review sets in the second place and the meeting has not to be called "code camp".

My 2 cents.

Regards,
Dominique
Thales+ObjectWeb

 

Arthur Ryman wrote :
 
I'd like to discuss how we should handle the code contributions for the code camp we are planning for June.

Here are some ground rules I think we should follow. Bjorn/John, please let us know if this is how Eclipse handles it.

1. The contributions must be uploaded to a sanctioned server 2 weeks prior to the meeting to allow for pedigree checking and participant review.
2. The code must be provided under CPL terms.
3. The contributors must provide a certificate of originality that states they have the right to contribute the code.
4. The contributions must be cleared before being released to the participants for review. Clearance should involve checking the licence, copyright, and certificate of originality. I think the checking should be done by Eclipse to ensure uniformity and avoid contamination issues.
5. The contributions must be in source format, compile and build cleanly, and execute with enough quality to allow participants to evaluate the code. I think executability is essential. I don't think it is productive to inspect code fragments. Personally, I find the best way to understand code is to step through it in a source debugger. I think Javadoc might also be useful, but I don't want contributors to feel they have to write lots of Javadoc before contributing.

Next is the issue of what server to use. I would like that to be Eclipse, but I can imagine that Eclipse might not want that until the board approved the proposal. I don't know if the board will approve before our meeting, but I think we really need to have this meeting in June since the next window is September and that would slow the momentum of the project. I think we can hold the meeting as part of the proposal development activity without implying board approval. However, if that is not acceptable to Eclipse, then I am happy to have ObjectWeb host the contributions, provided we observe the necessary guildelines on code pedigree.

Finally, I think it would be very helpful to have Bjorn and John facilitate the meeting. However, I understand that since we are proceeding possibly before board approval, that they may feel that is giving us implicit approval. I think we can be clear that this is a proposal development activity and that it does not imply board approval. Of course, it would be great if we could get board approval prior to the meeting.

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/

Naci Dai,
Managing Director

eteration a.s. 
Inonu cad. Sumer sok. Zitas D1-15
Kozyatagi, Istanbul 81090
+90 (532) 573 7783 (cell) 
+90 (216) 361 5434 (phone) 
+90 (216) 361 2034 (fax) 
http://www.eteration.com 
mailto:nacidai@xxxxxxx
mailto:naci@xxxxxxxxxxxxx