On 06/11/2013 5:14 AM, Philip Wenig
wrote:
B) Which name should we take for a generic 1d - 3d data
processing and visualization framework?
In my opinion, a separate project called "SciSoft" ->
"org.eclipse.scisoft" would be fine if there are no concerns
regarding trademarks. IHMO, only "org.eclipse.science" would be a
bit too generic.
C) Shall all participating projects change their plug-in names
to "org.eclipse.science"?
I think no. The Science WG will be (only) the top level project.
It will be the umbrella for several distinct subprojects. Hence,
each project shall write an own proposal to migrate its code to
the Eclipse Foundation. All accepted and migrated projects could
then be a part of the Science WG, e.g.:
A little Eclipse terminology is needed here:
- "Working groups" don't own projects. Working groups are
intended to be forums for member companies, committers, and
invited others work to complement what is being built in the
projects.
- We are starting to see a pattern where we create a top-level
project with the same name as the working group. Examples
include Polarsys, LocationTech, and hopefully soon M2M. It is
the top-level project and its Project Management Committee (PMC)
that ties the projects to the Eclipse Development Process.
I would highly encourage this group to consider replicating how
the M2M folks got started. That is, simply create a number of
projects in the Technology top-level project which is the normal
place to start incubators. Once you have a collection of projects
started and running and everyone is more familiar with the various
Eclipse processes you then create a new top-level project and
bring the project community together. In the meantime, all of the
community and cross-project discussions can happen on the
science-iwg list.
Similar to M2M, we should also create a science.eclipse.org
landing page (or whichever name folks get comfortable with) to
provide a "home" for the community. See m2m.eclipse.org as an
example.
I hope that helps.
|