Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [science-iwg] Science Top Level Project

Mike,

That's a very valuable $0.02. Thanks!

I think you are right and that the number of released projects is a better criteria. (And we're not in a hurry.) We definitely need more experience with the whole process.

I'm going to type a couple of related thoughts that came to mind when I read your response, just to get them out there for everyone, while I have a few more minutes.

We discussed the maturity of our projects a bit during the committee meeting. One of the interesting things about our projects in Science (ICE, DAWNSci, Chemclipse) is that even though they are currently incubating they are pretty large, established and mature from our pre-Eclipse days. The trip through incubation for these projects is more about compliance with IP and PMC needs than development of code, although that is still happening. I think it is safe to say that we what we are really incubating with this three projects is the neither the technology nor the governance, but the IP trail and membership in the project community, or at least it seems so to me. It looks like the same may be true for some possible future projects as well, although the viz project would be close to a completely new effort.

Another thing we discussed is that science projects typically have strong relationships with the government of the country where they were written. This presents a whole different set of issues than, say, pure technology projects. Help with dealing with these issues could be one really great benefit of a Science PMC.

Jay


On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/04/2015 3:25 PM, Jay Jay Billings wrote:
We decided that probably the best time to propose the top level project is when we have four or five active projects, so we are not quite there yet. We expect that we won't be far off by the end of Q2 2015. There are many other issues than simply "project count" related to this though and those are the things that we should start discussing.

So, any thoughts?

FWIW, I would recommend thinking about a different criteria. Namely, that you think about project maturity rather than the sheer number of projects. In our experience, starting a PMC where none of the participants have gone through the full project release process does not work all that well. So instead of "four or five active projects", maybe think about "two or three mature projects".

Just my $0.02 worth...

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)

_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg



--
Jay Jay Billings
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Twitter Handle: @jayjaybillings

Back to the top