View source for Planning Council/December 11 2013

== Logistics ==

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" border="1"
|-
| Meeting Title: 
| '''Planning Council Conference Call'''
|-
| Date &amp; Time: 
| Wednesday, December 4, 2013, at [http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2013&month=12&day=04&hour=12&min=0&sec=0&p1=179 1200 Noon Eastern]
|- valign="top"
| Dial in: 
| (See [[Asterisk]] service for complete details on SIP, potential new numbers, phone mute commands, etc.)

Phone Numbers: (Check [[Asterisk/Numbers]] for more or current phone numbers.)
:'''For all phone lines: Participant conference extension: 710 then enter pin  35498'''
* Ottawa (local call in Ottawa) 1-613-454-1403
* North America (toll free) 1-866-569-4992
* Germany (local call anywhere in Germany) +49-692-2224-6059
* France (local call anywhere in France) +33-17-070-8535
* UK (toll free) 0800-033-7806
* Switzerland (local call anywhere in Switzerland) +41-44-580-2115

* SIP clients: 
:call 710@asterisk.eclipse.org, then enter pin 35498.

|}

== Members and Attendees  ==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="15" cellpadding="5" border="0" align="center"
|- ||width="100%" valign="top" ||
|
{| width="100%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="1" align="top"
|+ '''PMC (and Strategic) Reps''' 
|-
| Chris Aniszczyk 
| Technology (PMC) 
| Y
|-
| Dani Megert 
| Eclipse (PMC) 
| Y 
|-
| Steffen Pingel 
| Mylyn (ALM) PMC 
| Y  
|-
| Brian Payton 
| Datatools (PMC) 
|  
|-
| Doug Schaefer
| Tools (PMC) 
| Y
|-
| Adrian Mos (Marc Dutoo )
| SOA (PMC) 
| 
|-
| Ed Merks 
| Modeling (PMC) 
|  
|-
| Ian Bull
| Rt (PMC) 
| Y  
|-
| Chuck Bridgham 
| WTP (PMC)  
| Y 
|-
| Gary Xue 
| Birt (PMC) 
| 
|-
| Wayne Beaton 
| Eclipse Foundation (appointed) 
|    
|-
| David Williams 
| (appointed Chair)
| Y 
|}
|
{| width="100%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="1" align="top"
|+ '''Strategic Reps''' 
|-
| Cedric Brun 
| OBEO (Strategic Developer) 
|   
|-
| Neil Hauge 
| Oracle (Strategic Developer) 
|    
|-
| Stephan Merker
| SAP AG (Strategic Developer) 
| Y 
|-
| Markus Knauer 
| Innoopract (Strategic Developer) 
| Y 
|-
| Markus Tiede 
| BREDEX (Strategic Developer) 
|   
|-
| Rajeev Dayal 
| Google (Strategic Developer) 
|  
|-
| (PMC rep)
| Actuate (Strategic Developer) 
| X
|-
| (PMC rep)
| IBM (Strategic Developer) 
| X
|}
|- ||width="100%" valign="top" ||
| 
{| width="100%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="1" align="top"
|+ '''Inactive''' 
|-
| [no name] 
| CA Inc. (Strategic Consumer) 
| X
|}
|}

<small>Note: "Inactive" refers to [http://www.eclipse.org/membership/showMembersWithTag.php?TagID=strategic Strategic Members] or PMCs we have not heard from for a while, and have been unable to convince to participate. Those members can become active again at any time. Contact David Williams if questions.</small> 

<small>Note: feel free to correct any errors/omissions in above attendance record.</small><br/><small>Y = Yes, attended</small><br/><small>N = No, did not</small><br/><small>R = regrets sent ahead of time</small><br/><small>D = delegated</small><br/><small>X = not expected</small>

== Announcements ==

* Have started the "Luna+1" naming process (See {{bug|422883}}). Thanks Chris, for taking the initiative. 

== Kepler SR2 == 

* ?

== Luna Planning ==

* Review Policy Wording

: After our last meeting, I realized we had never incorporated "Doug's wording" about new features in SRs into the actual Policy FAQ (though we discussed and agreed, though left open a month in case strategic members needed to discuss internally). I have now incorporated the wording in the FAQ. See [[SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Policy_FAQ]], the note that starts "[added April, 2013, modified November 2013]".

: Please review and approve to make sure I've correctly captured what we discussed -- and then "we" will announce on cross-project list. 

:: ''Approved.''

* Any new requirements? Any to remove or change?

:* Do we formally approve [[SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements| requirements]] for Luna?

:: ''Approved.''

:* If we ask people to specify exact feature (or repository) versions in b3 aggregator files (see {{bug|419746}}) is that a new "requirement" or implementation detail? For some, it would require "more work" and/or better tools to generate the files more easily. (Maybe make a requirement for next cycle?)

:: ''No discussion. At best, we'll get some "recommendations" documented and have on-going discussion about how best to accomplish the objective.''

* Anyone concerned about EPP's plans to require Java 7? 

: See {{bug|423734}}. Don't we usually encourage (but not require) projects to support the same "Target Environments" as the [http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?planurl=http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/development/plans/eclipse_project_plan_4_4.xml#target_environments Eclipse Platform Plan]?

:: ''There were concerns raised, and is the advise of the Planning Council that "minimum required" set in eclipse.ini file be set on a package-by-package basis, based on that package's needs, instead of having same requirement for every package, even when not needed. But, it is formally up to the EPP project and its committers (and package maintainers) to decide, not the Planning Council ... we are just giving advise.''
::: ''- The main argument "for" doing all packages the same way was that it's easier and more consistent message to end-user to get message "at the beginning" of trying to run, rather than something just "not working" (with at best a vague information message in the log).'' 
::: ''- The main argument "against" is that there are still some users of "Java 6" so why limit them if not really required and that its more in-line with our traditional approach (of not constraining projects to particular levels of a JRE).''
::: ''- Ian raised the use-case that p2 does not constrain installation, based on BREE levels. For example, if someone is using Java 6, and "starts off" with plain SDK (or any product that is not constrained to Java 7), then they can install features/bundles that require Java 7 (e.g. CDT) that p2 will allow them to be installed, but the Java 7 pieces still won't work, as long as user stays on Java 6 -- i.e. user still won't get "friendly message". I'm not sure if that is an argument "for or against" EPP's plans, but since the "plain SDK" is not going to constrain execution to 1.7, it seems inconsistent (and probably always has always been, to some degree). Projects considering constraining their BREEs to Java 7 may want to remember that use-case and document it well for end-users and adopters that Java 7 is required.''

== Progress on Action Items ==

* GSoC project for "Development Channel"? (Wayne)
::'' While GSoC is over, for a year, Wayne will at least recall history and open a bug for this.''. 
* Improved "aggregator examples/doc". (dw -- no progress).
* [Orbit plan  (dw -- no formal progress)] 
* Complete Google Calendar. (dw)
* Compute Luna SR dates. (dw)

== Next Meeting  ==

* No meeting in January? Or move to "second Wednesday" (January 8, 2014)
:: '' decided to plan meeting on "second Wednesday", since M4 will have passed, and SR2 starting up.''
* February 5, 2014 - Regular First Wednesday Meeting

== Reference  ==

: EclipseCon face-to-face follow-through action items. For original meeting notes, see [[Planning_Council/March_24_2013]] and for discussion leading to action items, see [[Planning_Council/April_10_2013]]. For last status update, see  [[Planning_Council/May_8_2013]].

:[[Luna| Luna Wiki page]]

:[[Kepler| Kepler Wiki page]]

:[[Planning Council/Kepler retrospective]]

:[http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/council.php#planning Planning Council Members]

:[[Simultaneous Release Roles]] and [[Simultaneous Release Roles/EMO]]