This is the proposed Report for the MTJ project, to be presented to the Eclipse Board on September 17, 2008.
Review of project scope and charter
(a description of where within the defined scope work is actually taking place. The PMC should also provide some guidance as to whether the scope and charter documents should be revised. Things may have changed since the charter was approved by the Board.)
The overall Scope of MTJ is to provide extensions to the base Eclipse IDE, targeted to developers of Mobile Java Applications. MTJ provides easy integration of 3rd party SDKs and Emulators from commercial vendors and free open source projects. It also allows the integration of advanced development tools like Proguard and Antenna.
MTJ has extension points which allow both, commercial and open source projects to easily integrate their own tools, emulators and SDK's into the Eclipse environment. We currently support SDKs following the UEI standard as well as popular other open source SDKs like MicroEMU and MPower.
MTJ is implemented in pure Java, and supports all common Host development platforms, Windows, Mac OS and Linux.
The MTJ project is still in "incubation", and was undergoing some significant restructuring in Q4/07 and Q1/08 (MTJ Reboot.
Since then the project has stabilized, it has an active committer community, and is producing nightly builds. The new code-base which was adopted in the Q1 "reboot" is largely based on the popular "EclipseME" toolkit created by Craig Setera.
During Q1 and Q2 the project was mainly working on re-factoring and bringing the new code base in conformance with the Eclipse legal and due diligence standards.
The plan is to have a first "official" release of the MTJ project in Q3/08, and then join the Galileo release train for 2009.
A high-level review of technical progress, strategy and release plans.
Self-assessment of the performance of the project
under the following headings (inspired by the Three Communities section of the Development Process):
Performance as an Eclipse open source project
Compliance with the Purposes (e.g. are they successfully “…supplying frameworks and exemplary, extensible tools..”?)
End user community and adoption.
E.g. are there lots of downloads, bugs, contributors, newsgroup postings, …? Note that I believe that while the absolute numbers are interesting, the more important data-point is the project’s assessment of how those numbers compare to their own expectations for the project.
Commercial community and adoption. E.g. is the technology from the project showing up in products.
Compliance with the Roadmap
What are the areas where the Board could be helping the PMC be more effective? E.g. Explain the “top three” problems that the Board needs to solve for the Project in the next year? (e.g., IP backlog, improving diversity, whatever).
· The Board will provide a written response to the issues raised.
What are the things about the project not covered above which the Board should know?