[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] PMC Approval Lag?
- From: Oisin Hurley <oisin.hurley@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:15:00 +0100
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kb7vrmWhBAQpCaQhwsxksmNbiV0yjHyjXucs8qiMGikLwm0exDU/kjrkG5lp1sHNjg anQ62Kqnj53FZtElEAhItf69TJdoQlkv5AbqZqHNJVSgv2nzD0IrB166JyfcOxH1KJh4 7aPHK2w3CCVuNjNy/j/Vyh3ja5PPfMB3ke2ho=
> The Tools versus Technology split still makes sense IMHO. Technology fills
> the need to have a default place to hold incubators while they mature.
This is our 'Eclipse Incubator' :)
> 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.
> No, I don’t think that the AC have the authority to refactor the projects.
> That requires the PMCs.
As the AC, we can merely suggest... :)
So - two items for the next AC meeting, perhaps:
1) That the Tools PMC look to expansion and staffing from more of its
2) That the Technology PMC take steps to help mature Technology
contained projects to move out from under the Technology umbrella.