[News.eclipse.foundation] Re: [EDP] What is motivating this revision?

[Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave wrote:
> What concerns me the most is solving this problem by
> defining it away: if the development process is sufficiently weakened, then 
> the Architectural Council's current contribution can be deemed satisfactory.

It would seem then that rather than just complaining about the 
situation, you could offer specific suggestions for improvement. To date 
you have not offered any such suggestions for improving the Development 
Process document that would solve this problem. (You have complained 
about how the EMO has operationally handled the Architecture Council, 
but even there I was unable to find any suggestions other than "stack 
the council" in (a) and "replace the council" in [1].)

Making sure that I'm not missing some specific suggestions that you have 
put forth, I carefully re-read all your comments on the newsgroup and 
the wiki. I found 3 specific suggestions (1, 2, 3) and two vague 
suggestions (a, b) - did I miss any?

(-) no specific suggestions in 
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.foundation/msg01283.html
(1) specific suggestion not to call the Mentoring Council a Council and 
instead call it a Coaching Squad in 
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.foundation/msg01285.html
  I disputed your interpretation but said that I would go with whatever 
the community as a whole chose.
(-) no specific suggestions in 
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.foundation/msg01287.html
(-) no specific suggestions in 
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.foundation/msg01292.html
(a) implied suggestion that the process contain descriptions of the the 
function and content of the proposed reviews in 
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.foundation/msg01291.html
  I added this suggestion to the wiki page
(-) somewhat vague operational suggestion to stack the Architecture 
Council with new people in 
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.foundation/msg01291.html
  I disagreed with this suggestion as I do not believe that stacking an 
group with extra people is the way to get the group to function.
(-)[1] no specific suggestions in 
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.foundation/msg01298.html
(-) no specific suggestions in 
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.foundation/msg01299.html
(-) no specific suggestions in 
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.foundation/msg01302.html
(2) specific suggestions on language at 
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Development_Process_2006_Revision#Principles
  I will incorporate these suggestions in the next revision.
(b) vague suggestion to include explicit expectations (without offering 
any suggestions of how to define those expectations) at 
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Development_Process_2006_Revision#Quality_Culture
  I would incorporate this suggestion if someone would provide 
definitions, however "freedom from defects" is equally vague and pointless.
(3) suggestion to enable the EMO to trigger an "Openness Review" at 
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Development_Process_2006_Revision@#Structure_and_Organization
  I incorporated this suggestion.

So, to summarize: specific suggestions from you and others have been 
incorporated. Further, I have tried to read between the lines of vague 
suggestions in order to incorporate them into the wiki.

I believe I speak for the entire community when I say that we welcome 
further *specific* suggestions for discussion and consideration while at 
the same time pointing out that imprecision, complaints, and arguments 
without specific remedies do not help the process.

- Bjorn