RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] PMC Approval Lag?

["Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

Thanks for adding this topic to our next week's agenda... 
Looks like it's going to be an exciting meeting. 

>  1)  That the Tools PMC look to expansion and staffing
>      from more of its contained projects;

Worth a try, but from my personal experience trying to
get the Tools PMC do _anything_ I am not too optimistic.
It's unfortunate, but today's reality resembles what
Doug S described.

It would be a great proof of the AC's usefulness if we
could come up with a solution that works in practice,
whatever it might look like.

Refactoring projects into containers of technology that 
are more related to each other seems like a good idea to 
me, since it would automatically make PMC participation 
more interesting for the projects. But I'm not sure 
whether that will be enough of an incentive for 
sponsoring companies to actually step up and invest 
time into running the PMC.

Cheers
Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oisin Hurley
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:15 PM
To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; eclipse.org-architecture-council
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] PMC Approval Lag?

> 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.

+1

> 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.

+1

> 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
       contained projects;
  2)  That the Technology PMC take steps to help mature Technology
       contained projects to move out from under the Technology umbrella.

 cheers
  --oh

 --oh
_______________________________________________
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.