[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [technology-pmc] Candidates for Termination/Continuation reviews
|
Does the dev process specify the frequency of continuation reviews for
incubating projects? If not, it seems to me that it would make sense to wait
until after Q1 to take any actions as the situation would resolve or change
by then such that concrete actions could be taken. It seems to me that a
continuation review at this stage would not actually accomplish anything. We
already know that they are stuck and why they are stuck.
- Konstantin
-----Original Message-----
From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:13 PM
To: 'Technology PMC'
Subject: RE: [technology-pmc] Candidates for Termination/Continuation
reviews
Konstantin,
The idea of doing a continuation review would be exactly to allow them to
"remain in incubation". The dev process says that projects are required to
have periodic reviews, and these two haven't had one for quite a while. The
continuation review would simply document that they're still alive but that
they are stuck.
The new forge most likely won't be operational until late Q1, which is
around the time that Maven 3 is supposed to ship. (Based on the latest info
we have.) So it will be a close race to which option arrives first.
Does that make sense?
Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:technology-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik
> Sent: December-02-09 5:57 PM
> To: 'Technology PMC'
> Subject: RE: [technology-pmc] Candidates for Termination/Continuation
> reviews
>
> Hi Wayne,
>
> I generally agree with your proposed actions with the exception of the two
> Maven projects. I am uncertain as to what we would hope to actually
achieve
> with a continuation review of these projects in Q1. Given how important
> Maven tooling is, I am concerned that we don't send wrong message to
people
> who have been contributing to this tooling. If the IP issues are likely to
> be resolved, then I suggest we let the projects remain in incubation until
> then. Otherwise, a better course of action would be to suggest a move to
> the
> non-IP-cleared Eclipse code repository that Foundation is apparently
> setting
> up (going on Mike's blog here).
>
> - Konstantin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:27 PM
> To: Technology PMC
> Subject: [technology-pmc] Candidates for Termination/Continuation reviews
>
> Greetings Technology PMC. I have done a quick review of some of our
> projects and have come to the conclusion that it might be time to
> consider terminating/archiving some of them. I have identified some
> others that are due for a continuation review (this list is not complete).
>
> I'd like to hear your thoughts/concerns before I take this to the
> projects themselves. I intend to use the projects' developer mailing
> list for the communication, and give the projects until year's end to
> respond. We'll do the termination review at the beginning of 1Q10.
>
> Your recommendations for projects that need to be added to this list are
> most welcome as well.
>
> I will offer to assemble a single termination review document for all
> that agree.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wayne
>
> Albireo
>
> There hasn't been a commit in more than nine months. The last committer
> activity on the project's mailing list occurred on December 17, 08. The
> last committer activity on the newsgroup/forum occurred on November 7,
> 2008. The project seems to be dead. I recommend a Termination Review.
>
> technology.athena
>
> I just noticed this "extra" Athena project (technology.athena) in the
> database. I'm not sure how this got there, but it seems to be different
> from technology.dash.athena. I think it may have just gotten created by
> mistake.
>
> BPEL
>
> Seems generally active, but hasn't had a review of any form in while. I
> recommend we ask for a continuation review. It may be naive, but it
> seems to me that this project might fit in the new SOA top level project
> that the board recently approved the charter for. I'd like to encourage
> them to consider moving.
>
> ECM Rich Client Platform
>
> Project is marked as "Incubation-nonconforming". All committers are
> currently listed as "inactive" meaning that there have been no commits
> for at least nine months. There has been no committer activity in the
> newsgroup/forum for more than a year. Developer mailing list has been
> inactive for more than a year. The project seems to be dead. I recommend
> a Termination review.
>
> IAM
>
> The project was recently informed by the IP Team that their blocker
> dependency (Maven) doesn't pass IP scrutiny. Specifically, there is an
> issue with the provenance of the Maven Plexus component that cannot be
> resolved [1]. There is some hope that, with the 3.0 release of Maven,
> this issue will be resolved. In the meantime, there's really not much
> that they can do but wait. I recommend a continuation review.
> Alternatively, the project might consider terminating and recreating at
> a future date when the provenance issues are cleared up.
>
> Maven Integration (m2eclipse)
>
> This project has the same issue as IAM. I recommend a continuation
> review. Alternatively, the project might consider terminating and
> recreating at a future date when the provenance issues are cleared up.
>
> Maynstall
>
> All committers are currently listed as "inactive" meaning that there
> have been no commits for at least nine months. There has been no
> committer activity in the newsgroup/forum for more than a year.
> Developer mailing list has been inactive for more than a year. The
> project seems to be dead. I recommend a Termination review.
>
> Open Financial Market Platform
>
> AFAIK, the project lead intends to archive this project in favour of the
> new Eclipse Financial Platform project currently in the proposal stage.
> All committers are currently listed as "inactive" meaning that there
> have been no commits for at least nine months. There has been no
> committer activity in the newsgroup/forum for more than a year.
> Developer mailing list has been inactive for more than a year. The
> project seems to be dead. I recommend a Termination review.
>
> Open Requirements Management Framework
>
> All committers are currently listed as "inactive" meaning that there
> have been no commits for at least nine months. There has, however, been
> relatively activity in the mailing lists and newsgroup. I recommend a
> continuation review.
>
> The Eclipse Spaces Project
>
> With the exception of one, all committers are currently listed as
> "inactive" meaning that there have been essentially no commits for at
> least nine months. That one commit occurred in March. There has been no
> committer activity in the newsgroup/forum for more than nine months.
> Developer mailing list has been inactive for more than nine months. The
> project seems to be dead. I recommend a Termination review.
>
> Summer of Code (SOC)
>
> This project was never particularly active. We originally created it to
> provide a home for code generated by the GSoC programme offering at
> Eclipse. We haven't actually committed any code to this project or any
> of its subprojects for a long time. We didn't use it at all in the last
> year. I recommend a Termination review of this container project and
> all its subprojects. We can keep the website and newsgroup alive as just
> one more of the properties that the Eclipse Foundation maintains.
>
> Corona Project - Tools Services Framework
>
> There have been commits in the last six months, but nothing in the last
> three. I don't think it's time to ask for a termination review, but it
> is certainly time to request a continuation review.
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3164
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.90/2540 - Release Date: 12/02/09
> 07:33:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.91/2541 - Release Date: 12/02/09
19:43:00
