---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Wim,
I'm not on the tools PMC nor the technology PMC , and so this response will bounce to those mailing lists. Please post this response to those mailing lists on my behalf.
Wim Jongman wrote:
Hi Scott,
<...emerging from the pool>
Thanks again for your mail. However, I'd rather not attach my sources to a bug before it has any official status. Also, I would like to maintain some ownership on the project. How is that taken care of in your suggestion?
Not quite sure what you mean by 'ownership'. You would (of course) have whatever copyright you wanted in the code, and this is the ultimate notion of 'ownership' with EPL-licensed codebases (any Eclipse project). Further, I would propose moving you toward committer status (on ECF project), and then you would be the primary committer maintainer of this/these bundles.
Are you (Wim) already a committer on some other EF project? If so, which one(s)? I don't expect it would be a big hassle to add you as an ECF committer, but I and the other exisitng committers would need a little bit more familiarity with your work before we can/could reasonably vote you in as an ECF committer. But that means looking at your code...
Since almost all requirements have been met to make it a standalone technology project wouldn't it be better for now to follow that route instead.
No, I don't really agree. From your point of view, as a separate/new project you will have to deal with all the EF project requirements essentially on your own (e.g. the reviews, creating your own build infrastructure, going from incubation to non-incubation status, IP process, etc., etc). We (ECF) already have all this in place, have gone through it, and can reuse what we've already done (e.g. build infrastructure). Also, there are people like me (who've gone through it many times) to at least help do the IP and process stuff :).
Further, from a technology perspective, much of what you have in the newsreader app (i.e. implementation of nntp protocol) is/would be suitable for ECF, and ultimately belongs there IMHO. Also I think there are a number of things that we're already doing (e.g. IM, shared editing, google wave integration, etc) that would be naturally helpful/valuable for the newsreader app, and having things be in separate projects and under separate project teams will not help with integration.
And if a higher-level (i.e. top-level) 'tool collaboration' project/package' is created we/ECF will certainly be a major part of that (as we have a number of components and apps relevant to such an effort...e.g. shared editing, discovery, remote services, IM, etc, etc).
So in summary I think that a separate technology project for the newsreader is not a great idea, as it
1) increases the burden on you (IP, process, build)
2) reduces potential for what should be natural collaboration between teams around ECF's area of focus (inter-process communication).
3) does not take advantage of a natural fit at the 'protocol implementation level' between the newsreader (nntp) and ECF's multi-protocol approach.
If you would like to chat/talk directly about this I would be happy to...my skype id is 'sblewis'. Just let me know.
Thanks,
Scott
