blob: 6f43e129c3032e3b8668e31c93b5dddd7a686df9 [file] [log] [blame]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" />
<title>WTP PMC Agenda/Minutes for September 07, 2010 Conference
Call</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>WTP PMC Agenda/Minutes for Septermber 07, 2010 Conference Call</h1>
<h2>Call Info</h2>
<p>Tollfree in the US: 877-421-0030 <br />
Alternate: 770-615-1247<br />
Access code: 173098# <br />
<a
href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/images/f/f6/WTP_status_phone_access.pdf">Full
list of phone numbers</a><br />
<br />
<a
href="http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/custom.html?cities=224,207,1440,107
&amp;month=08
&amp;day=31
&amp;year=2010
&amp;hour=11
&amp;min=0&amp;sec=0&amp;p1=207">Call
Time: 8:00 AM Pacific; 11:00 AM Eastern; 1500 UTC</a></p>
<h2>Attendees</h2>
<h3>PMC Members</h3>
<ul>
<li style="margin: 0em 0.2em 0em 0em; padding: 0.0em;">David
Williams: Y</li>
<li style="margin: 0em 0.2em 0em 0em; padding: 0.0em;">Naci Dai: N</li>
<li style="margin: 0em 0.2em 0em 0em; padding: 0.0em;">Raghunathan
Srinivasan: Y</li>
<li style="margin: 0em 0.2em 0em 0em; padding: 0.0em;">Neil Hauge:
Y</li>
<li style="margin: 0em 0.2em 0em 0em; padding: 0.0em;">Tim deBoer:
Y</li>
<li style="margin: 0em 0.2em 0em 0em; padding: 0.0em;">Kaloyan
Raev: Y</li>
</ul>
<h2>Announcements and General Business</h2>
<ul>
<li><a
href="http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/plans/3.2.2/pmc-bug-approval.php">PMC
Review Approvals?</a></li>
<li>Discuss OSGi EE application proposal
<p style="text-indent: 5em; font-style: italic;">Advised to leave
Aries and Virgo out of the proposal completely. That avoids "no-spec"
issue (at least for now). (There was even some questions asked if Virgo
"violates" OSGi spec, if I heard that right?). It was mentioned that it
is possible to develop some types of applications with OSGi bundles
only (no "metadata" required). So might be some merit to no-app-model
tools. But, otheres mentioned it's like having a webapp without an EAR
... not as much control/reuse? Also, there was some that questioned how
much "end user" tools there could be with OSGi only apps. Might turn
out to be mostly framework for adopters?</p>
<p style="text-indent: 5em; font-style: italic;">In this context,
we discussed what we'd want to change about charter, especially the
part that's so specific about "specs". While we agree its over
limiting, should we remove it completely? Have some modified (looser)
form? How else to state "widely used, industry accepted enterprise
frameworks, that fit well with the rest of WTP." Does the charter <strong>obligate</strong>
us to accept "anything that technically fits the wording", or is it
always PMC's descretion? Fairly sure there's no "obligation", but we'd
need to know what guidence and expectations to provide to others, and
avoid apparences of some sort of arbitrary favoritism. Most important,
it was discussed, it would be best to consider any charter changes
independent of any particular project proposal, though some would be
"in mind" perhaps as "hypothetical examples" to discuss.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h3>Future Agenda items</h3>
<ul style="text-indent: 5em; font-style: italic;">
<li>Retrospect Helios quick maintenance release. Does it mean we
weren't ready to release? Any way to improve timing in future?</li>
<li>Disuss our model and assignments of "PMC Roles". Do they still
make sense?</li>
</ul>
<h3>References</h3>
<ul>
<li><a
href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Team_thoughts_on_continuous_improvement_32">Continuous
Improvement Notes</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>Back to <a href="../index_pmc_call_notes.php">meeting list</a>.</p>
<p>Please send any additions or corrections to David Williams.</p>
</body>
</html>