Re: [tools-pmc] Object Teams proposal

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Doug, 

Thanks for stating your position. It is really helpful. And I welcome 
hearing others. 

I thought I made my position clear in words, but following your directions 
... 

-1 

until I'm assured the conversations have taken place. 

I hate to sound contrary, I'm not, and I'm sure everything will be fine 
and resolved easily, but I think as a matter of process it is best to 
ensure some discussion between projects first, before going out for public 
review. 

Thanks again, 





From:
Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
10/14/2009 09:42 PM
Subject:
Re: [tools-pmc] Object Teams proposal
Sent by:
tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



Other thank breathing life into AspectJ, I'm not sure it makes a lot of 
sense to keep these together. They share motivation but not necessarily 
technology. In some sense, all the compiled languages share the same 
motivation and probably more technology than these two but we aren't 
pushing them together (not that I haven't thought of that ;)). I'm O.K. 
with getting the ball rolling with this and if they can strike a deal with 
the AspectJ community, then we can change midstream. But I wouldn't make 
that a prerequisite.

So I'm voting +1. David, I understand your concerns. If you do want them 
addressed, you should change your vote to -1 and we can wait and see what 
washes out.

Doug.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM, David M Williams <
david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
0: for now, from me.

I'd like to better understand how or if this fits in with existing
projects
such as AspectJ. The proposal says "a full discussion of the differences
is
beyond the scope of this document".

And that's fine ... I'm sure its over my head. :)

But, since it "shares motivation and a few core mechanisms" I want to be
sure all the possibilities have been discussed. For example, should they
"join forces" and have a combined effort with AspectJ? Even if separate,
perhaps a sub-sub-project relationship? Have discussions taken place with
Object Team team and AspectJ team?

I've asked Andy Clement (Project Lead of AspectJ) his opinion and hope to
hear from him soon.

I'm not, by the way, saying any of the above are the right answer. I don't
know. I just want to make sure all the right people are involved in the
discussion.

Beyond that, I think its a well written proposal and might have a very
successful home at Eclipse.

I am a bit concerned if it would succeed in one of the main goals, stated
in
response to one of my previous questions, but not mentioned in the
proposal
itself, "... our main goal currently is to build a greater community". If
this is one of the main goals, I do think it should be mentioned in the
proposal, with some ideas and steps about how that was planned to be
accomplished by the project team. But that's more fine tuning. Lets settle
project similarities and differences that might (or might not) effect
proposed organizational structure.

Thanks,






From:
Chris Aniszczyk <zx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
10/14/2009 10:59 AM
Subject:
Re: [tools-pmc] Object Teams proposal
Sent by:
tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Stephan Herrmann <
stephan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What are your comments on associating Object Teams under Tools
specifically?

I think this is a good idea, can we get a +1 from the Tools PMC?

Cheers,

--
Chris Aniszczyk | EclipseSource Austin | +1 860 839 2465
http://twitter.com/eclipsesource | http://twitter.com/caniszczyk
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc



_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc