[news.eclipse.board.committer.reps] Re: Projects vs. Components and Incu

["David Williams" <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:54:00 -0400, Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> One problem Bjorn often points out is that components are not a very well-defined concept in the foundation'srule books and that there's no such thing as a subsubproject.

Darn, I thought it was me that always pointed that out :)
These terms, 'component', "subproject", project, and top level project are definitely ill-defined.
(Almost as if "by design"?!)
Normally this doesn't matter, but, does when some rule is "tied" to one of the terms.

As for incubation policy, seems the trend is (or, should be?) for every top level project to propose one Incubaating Project ... and then all those "loose" components can be developed "there". But, for the most part, "there" doesn't mean much in the internet age ... it does sort of all come down to how named and how packaged, which does call into quetions why the 'project' vs. 'component' distinction is so important. Perhaps it has to do with "management ownership" (at least perceived) That is, "compoents" could be one person working on one small thing with little oversite? I'm just guessing obviously, but I'd guess this rule/policy was "designed by committee" trying to balance the many (some conflicting) goals. And, I don't mean to sound critical ... I do think it's great ... a step in the right direction ... and I'm sure by this time next year, our committer reps will have iterated to have an even better version spelled out :)