The Tools versus Technology split still makes sense IMHO.
Technology fills the need to have a default place to hold incubators while they
mature. Tools fills the need to have a default place for mature projects that
don’t really fit elsewhere.
However, I do agree that there are two issues that need to be
addressed:
a) The
PMC does need to be more active and responsive. It should also likely be fully
representative of the projects it includes.
b)
There are a number of projects which appear to be staying in
Technology longer than they should. Once a project is mature, it should
typically be looking for a new home. (Yes, there are always exceptions, but
that should be the general rule.) So I think the Technology PMC should be
encouraging mature projects to evaluate whether they should move. And for many
of those, I would expect that Tools is the natural destination.
No, I don’t think that the AC have the authority to
refactor the projects. That requires the PMCs.
I'm ok with
refactoring projects - but does the AC have the ability to make such calls ?
I personally never really understood the rationale
of the Tools and Technology projects: they seem to be the old shell of the ecosystem,
back in 2003.