Community
Participate
Working Groups
As part of the planning process, I've been asking EMF and EMFT component leads to write a plan.xml for each of their components. We'd like to be able to list these in the portal, but of course we can't do that right now. I have the same issue for the XSD component-soon-to-be-project plan in MDT too.
Hi Ed, I'm marking this as dependent on bug 198541 because implementation of the tooling for that will allow meta-data management for components.
Bringing Wayne into the loop.
I think this one depends on Bug 278901 (correct me if I'm wrong). The bug dependencies notwithstanding, it's all about transparency and openness. Turning a component into a project requires a review. Let's call it a restructuring review. We can do a single review for all projects. The review documentation should indicate what you want to change. This might include new mailing lists, newsgroups/forums, representation in IPZilla and the Portal, project leaders, whatever.
I'm not sure that the portal supporting more plan.xml documents is related to IPZilla supporting finer grained categories... In any case, given the disjoint committer rights for these things and the fact that each component was already created following the full project creation review process, I'm not sure why we'd need to create a new as-yet-to-be-defined process just so the portal can catch up with development process changes from more than a year ago with the argument that this will create a transparency that's otherwise missing. Should the community not already expect that all the things created by the project creation review process in the past end up being projects?
I personally am with Ed on this one. I think the fact that the Foundation DB labels them as "components" is no longer of value or interest in most cases. Maybe we ought to talk about that. But, the development process redefined components as projects so IMHO I don't see a distinction at this point. We had previously more or less grandfathered the existing components (otherwise we'd have tens of these reviews to do). Logistically speaking, components have had equal access in the Portal since at least May, including meta-data, elections, etc. The only thing that I think is not working for them at the moment is IPZilla. Is there a specific issue that I'm missing with regard to these Modeling components in the Portal? What I _do_ think we need to do is standardize the Modeling project to meet the standards defined in bug 198541. I think that would solve almost all the headaches that everyone is currently suffering. Matt, Sharon, and I have done a number of these now and can help make it fairly painless. Nick B and I worked closely together on EMF and it has already been standardized, for example.
FYI comment 1 above was before my statements in comment 5 were true in case it looks like I'm contradicting myself.
It looks like I misunderstood what was being asked. Nevermind. I agree that a review of any sort isn't required here. FWIW, a "restructuring review" already exists as part of the EDP. What is preventing each of the various EMFT projects from putting a plan url in their project data so that it shows up on their project summary page? I believe that some of these projects don't have project leads. Ed, you can masquerade as PL to set the plan. Even better would be to elect a PL for projects that need 'em.
It looks like it is possible for these to have their own plans now so I think this bugzilla is all done.
(In reply to comment #8) > It looks like it is possible for these to have their own plans now so I think > this bugzilla is all done. So... can we close it then?
The portal supports it now.
