I agree with Gunnar. I think
"influence software architectures used by Projects" is good.
Influence doesn't imply control, or dictating the direction. It can take
many forms. Even the simple act of having a body (AC) and forum (AC calls,
AC bugzilla) for architectural discussions has the effect of influencing
the direction of project architecture. Being "responsible for influencing
the ecosystem" is much too vague to have any meaning, in my opinion.
John
Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/11/2011 10:10 AM
Please respond to
"eclipse.org-architecture-council" <eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council]
Bylaws Change on AC (was: 10-Mar AC meeting notes)
Am 11.03.2011 15:55, schrieb Oberhuber, Martin:
> As I said Iâm not a good wordsmith nor native English speaker so
Iâm
> having a hard time coming up with something good. My only idea at
this
> time is removing the âProjectsâ and replacing architecture with
ecosystem:
I think "ecosystem" is way to broad. If we can't even manage
to
influence projects how should we influence a whole ecosystem?
FWIW, I don't think that "influence software architectures used by
Projects" is such a bad term. Even if it's pull instead of push and
indirectly by processes and tools instead directly, I think it's still
our influence.
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.