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

FWIW, I would be happy to discuss with the Science WG on how we can raise the profile of the technology. I think what you guys are doing is very cool. When is your next meeting?

Ian


On 08/04/2015 8:24 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
+1

If we want to build an ecosystem then a top level project is essential. Why? So that, as Philip points out, we can espouse the benefits of joining. Currently we’re asking people to pay money to join the science iwg, but what do they get in return. Also, there are some upcoming opportunities to source funding from the US government, but unless we can demonstrate significant value add it will be very hard to convince them it is a good idea. Finally, I think this would raise the profile of science within the foundation, and help us demonstrate that the technology behind scientific computing can be just as important as other technologies like iot or locationtech.

Greg

On Apr 8, 2015, at 4:28 AM, Philip Wenig <philip.wenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Mike, hi Jay,

yep, it would be great if more projects/companies/institutions would join. Anyhow, we're on a good a way so I think. But an experience I made when talking to people/projects is that it's not easy to describe the benefits of joining the Science WG in short words ... even though we are aware of its benefits. We possibly should discuss this point to find a better way of advertising our strength.

In a separate mail I will propose three projects I'd really like to see joining our working group. Maybe others could also make recommendations :-).


Best,
Philip

Am 07.04.2015 um 22:07 schrieb Jay Jay Billings:
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


_______________________________________________
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


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Philip Wenig

http://www.openchrom.net

https://www.xing.com/profile/Philip_Wenig
http://de.linkedin.com/pub/philip-wenig/2a/4a8/877
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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

-- 

Ian Skerrett
VP of Marketing
Eclipse Foundation
(m) 613-240-7210
(o) 613-224-9461 ext 227
(t) @ianskerrett

Back to the top