Difference between revisions of "Planning Council/August 05 2009"

Latest revision as of 21:16, 5 August 2009

Logistics

Attendees

Topics

• Announcements:

Congratulations and condolences to John Arthorne as new PC rep from Eclipse PMC

Congratulations and condolences to Oisin Hurley as new EclipseCon program chair!

Congratulations and condolences to Brian Payton as new DTP rep

• Finalize SR1 Plan.

• Now considered final.
• A concern was raised that Platform's build is just to day, they are not sure everyone knew and are ready for a delivery next Monday ... but, first RC isn't critical if they can't update (but probably can).
• A concern raised that in general given +0 is on Monday, and finalized on Friday, that there could be a long period before a regression (discovered, say, on Thursday or Friday) was fixed, since Thursday or Friday is too late for following week's Platform. But ...

• For one, there's nothing stopping highly dependent projects or adopters from doing their testing earlier. For example, WTP doesn't have to wait for the Common Discovery Repository delivery before starting their testing.
• For another, exceptions can be worked out on a case-by-case bases, patches supplied, etc., if for example, a regression was so bad it prevented another project or adopter from doing their testing. (I would say this is unlikely ... but it does happen).

• Review Planning Council/Galileo postmortem.

It was mentioned (from Eclipse Platform team) that they didn't participate in forming these notes, but that it corresponds to their own team-meeting notes, except they would have also added the "+1", "+2" categories of dependencies may be too simplified, since in reality, some projects need to deliver part of their components, say, at +0 or +1, but another leaf component at +2 or +3). They would also appreciate making sure that the simultaneous release criteria be better explained.

We'll continually review list to make sure issues addressed, action plans made, owners found, etc.

• Begin Helios Discussions

• similar process of having Common Discover Site
• similar criteria?

to be in Common Discover Site

to be in Release

But with graduated levels of achievement where appropriate (e.g. 5 levels from none to excellent)

Instead of "pass/fail", require a "statement of intent" for each item as part of Project Plan.

For example, some projects might declare "no intent to support accessibility checklists".

Projects would still be excluded on a case by case bases, if felt they interfered with the process, or other projects functionality, but otherwise try to get more "consumer oriented".

It was thought the above ideas worth pursuing (at least to the point of making more concrete, for review). Nothing firm decided.

• Hot Items? No time to discuss this topic.

Granularity: sub-Projects vs. Top Level Project?

capabilities definitions and process?

others?

• Helios Dates:

These dates were agreed to, with the change of using 4th Wednesday of June, instead of last Wednesday of June, for the release.

M1 8/7 - 8/21

M2 9/18 - 10/2

Initial standard-format plans due 10/2

M3 10/30 - 11/13

M4 12/11 - 12/18 [note: beginning of 1 week windows]

M5 1/29 - 2/5 [seven week span from M4, to account for end-of-year holidays]

M6 3/12 - 3/19

EclipseCon 3/22 - 3/25

M7 4/30 - 5/7 [seven week span from M6, to account for EclipseCon]

Release: 6/23/2010 (4th Wednesday of June)

Notes regarding the +0, +1, +2, +3, EPP, and 'available' days

• The first three milestones use a two-week window and the remaining milestones use 1-week windows.
  
• The sub-deadline patterns within the windows are as follows:
  

• This pattern was arrived at with a couple of considerations: a) it is very important that teams have a consistent rhythm (so, for example, easier for a team to "always deliver on Tuesday" rather than Monday's some milestones, Thursdays other milestones, etc. b) it represents the latest possible time to produce common-discovery site ... teams can, still, either on their own or work with other projects to do their final builds earlier, making their delivery available earlier to specific teams or test groups.
• Remember, the +n categories represent latest possible time to complete what is required of common discovery site (generally, at noon, Eastern time, of the day). Teams have to do their builds and testing before these common-site deadlines.
• In general, teams often have complicated inter-dependencies which are not captured by the simple "+1", "+2" descriptions. In those cases, it is up to those projects to work out their detailed inter-dependencies and agree to a processes to satisfy what they need from each other. The dates and deadlines listed by Planning Council, apply only to the final deliverable to the common repository.

• Do we have the right members? What to do about those that are inactive?

For reference, there are 14 Strategic Members

It was decided to form "inactive" list, and work with Strategic members and/or EMO to get someone who can be active. Also, to better document benefits of participation.

• Next Meeting

September 2, Wednesday, Noon Eastern Time.

Reference

Galileo Simultaneous Release

Planning Council Members

Simultaneous_Release_Roles and Simultaneous_Release_Roles/EMO