| Whoa there big fella! The RT PMC *explicitly* disallows PMC members from approving their own stuff for exactly the reason that it renders meaningless PMC oversight and visibility. We see great value in one PMC member explaining things to other(s). The reason for having each project represented is to facilitate communication and coordination between the RT projects. Ultimately we want to present RT to the world as some at least modestly coordinated affair. Each of the RT projects has their own cut on that and we want those different viewpoints to be represented. Each project's PMC member represents their project and pushes their agenda but not to the exclusion of discussion and explanation.
Jeff
On 2010-04-01, at 12:06 PM, John Arthorne wrote:
I don't know anything about the inner
workings of the Tools project, but I noticed the RT project recently nominated
a representative from each sub-project onto the PMC. That way, each project
can just take care of their own elections and there is no worry about having
to explain context to a PMC member who knows little to nothing about the
project. I wonder if that would help with the Tools project as well. It
seems unreasonable for Doug or David to have to judge what is best
for Mylyn or Buckminster, or for them to be the gating factor in committer
elections on those projects. Anyway, I'm a complete outsider on this but
thought I'd throw out the suggestion...
John
Doug Schaefer wrote on 04/01/2010 08:58:48 AM:
> There are discussions about bringing projects under the CDT. That
> way I can track things that I have more knowledge about (and care
> about for that matter). Other than that, no, it's what I meant by
> "little anyone wants to do about it". Technology benefits
from an
> foundation staffer managing it, Tools is pure volunteer with little
> vested interest above everything else we volunteer for and have
> vested interest in.
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Oisin Hurley
<oisin.hurley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Tools is dysfunctional. There's no
if, ands, or buts about it. There seems
> > to be little anyone wants to do about it. So it is what it is,
for now.
> Have there been any proposals to change that
state of affairs?
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal. |
