[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] PMC Approval Lag?
- From: Antoine Toulme <antoine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:26:36 -0700
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:reply-to:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:received :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=v5PM82Wdjjb9pFfZjGp+Vvc8j9O2WBmKgmhFZPBayKY=; b=AFPqOyv14+vLpzxoomwZQcuifYOGGkd68ryfwCmNtGX5PgOE+wRr0IlXANNrFAVy+M ONjif+WspY2/zMLfRUklpEKCxqAi6OwVJxyyN98ex99qEAiEsMQ90Q0hxKSDFjRggnYg 3sp4U0xH4PMRq/n4FSF5e+Yb8H986K+2ry5Cc=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=taS3EkRc8bVKX2KqIdHNqcNGjwmfp3fTQZbgwTFbHNxJ1mBjN5FpTUh4OPwTxYRURM nfEJdFsjAgMC5fJ8E2pwfxwwBD3pVpie+b17MXibUt/ZO2XtQZqIzLKFbJ+Xwq6A+E9E W90FPZdfci9KyQqPOaNKQCPJBzGwYHKmM000U=
OK with discussing all this.
I remember an epic chat over the phone when we tried to convince the BPEL editor project that they would be better off being hosted at the STP project. I'd be happy to discuss how it went - I think Oisin remembers it as well.
I think we should help the Technology project by doing a bit of marketing for other TLPs. I also note that not all incubating projects go to the Technology TLP (which is why I am confused about its role).
I'll try to break that down and add those topics to the next call if that's ok ?
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:15, Oisin Hurley <oisin.hurley@xxxxxxxxx>
> The Tools versus Technology split still makes sense IMHO. Technology fillsThis is our 'Eclipse Incubator' :)
> the need to have a default place to hold incubators while they mature.
> 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.
As the AC, we can merely suggest... :)
> No, I don’t think that the AC have the authority to refactor the projects.
> That requires the PMCs.
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.