Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Planning Council/June 03 2009

< Planning Council
Revision as of 09:34, 2 June 2009 by David williams.acm.org (Talk | contribs) (6/3)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Logistics

Meeting Title: Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time: Wednesday, June 03, 2009, at 1600 UTC / 0900 SFO / 1200 NYC / 1700 London / 1800 Berlin
Dial-in: For the call-in numbers, see the "Project Review" number on Foundation Portal page.

Attendees

Chris Aniszczyk
Cedric Brun
Oliver Cole
Stefan Daume
Brian Fitzpatrick
Wayne Beaton
Doug Gaff
Neil Hauge
Mika Hoikkala
Anthony Hunter
Oisin Hurley
Markus Knauer
Christian Kurzke
Gary Xue
Ed Merks
Mike Milinkovich
Philippe Mulet
James Saliba
Georg Schmidt
Kaloyan Raev R
Thomas Watson
David Williams

Note: feel free to correct any errors/omissions in above attendance record.

Topics

  • Its official: Helios is name of our 2010 Simultaneous Release.
  • PC Decision on Categories in Discovery Site
DSDP Category name change: bug 277006
PC didn't like the exact proposal. Will comment in bug, and await reply. No reply?!
RAP in Webtools? No bug opened?
Are we happy with "must do" compliance?
Judging from items not marked, it appears these are the projects of worst quality (or, worst adopter readiness?):
EMFT 20
PDT 15
CDT 14
MAT 13
MDT 10
  • RC3 update
Done yet?
  • Next Meeting
Regularly scheduled one on first Wednesday of Month: June 3, 12 Noon Eastern
Upcoming topics
Frequency and dates of maintenance builds
Dates for next year's project plans
Wayne volunteer to check how done in past, and if Board or EMOD had any critera (and the answer was "no", up to PC).
Build schedule for next year (start with M1)

Reference

  • PC Position on off-cycle releases and use of discovery site (and EPP)? This came up in discussions about a Pulsar package.
Conclusion: we do not want to support off-cycle releases. But with following compromise: If a project still met all the normal "release criteria" set forth as must-do's by PC then they could introduce something new during SR1 or SR2 (that is SR1 and SR2 can have more than service, if important, and must-do criteria met). The reason for not supporting things off cycle was a. it is more work to support it, b. there is no opportunity for "simultaneous release" testing, c. it would dilute the meaning of "simultaneous release".


Galileo Simultaneous Release

Planning Council Members

Simultaneous_Release_Roles and Simultaneous_Release_Roles/EMO

Back to the top