Skip to main content

Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

Planning Council/May 20 2009


Meeting Title: Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time: Wednesday, May 20 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.


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

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


  • Conclude Naming next year's release (Thanks Oliver).
See the doodle poll
And especially last few comments in bug 271054
Helios. The runner up was Halley. (in case EMO Legal review finds issue with Helios).
  • PC Decision on Categories in Discovery Site
Business Intelligence: See bug 275392
PC decide B I R C was ok (best we could do, this year, but subject to change next year, as they all are).
DSDP Category name change: bug 277006
PC didn't like the exact proposal. Will comment in bug, and await reply.
Good, brief discussion on this topic in general, for next year. May want to be more creative and consider multilevel categories, wizards that could help narrow interests (and "include source" checkbox choice), should also better represent _the_ packages that are available from EPP (e.g. "RCP Developer").
  • 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".
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?):
PDT 15
CDT 14
MAT 13
MDT 10
  • RC1 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 Links

Galileo Simultaneous Release

Planning Council Members

Simultaneous_Release_Roles and Simultaneous_Release_Roles/EMO

Copyright © Eclipse Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.