[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo Must Do's: How much Rules? - Results are in
|
Unfortunately, we were missing a voice from Technology on the last call:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/Dec_03_2008
Best,
Rich
On 12/4/08 12:04 PM, "Scott Lewis" <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> Just for the record, as a former Technology project lead I approached
> Rich and the tech PMCs at ESE about the input from technology projects
> on the Planning Council. I'm not sure if the Technology PMCs
> subsequently provided input...but I guess not.
>
> And given input from Thomas and others about community needs, I'm still
> wondering: why are the number of these must-dos being *increased*?
>
> Scott
>
>
> Ed Merks wrote:
>> Randy,
>>
>> Apparently none of the PMC leads of any of the top-level projects were
>> approached by any subproject lead with any concerns about the Galileo
>> must-do's. As such, the collective silence is interpreted as
>> pervasive tacit agreement. At the PC council meeting, we even added
>> one more must do: change each plugin.properties and feature.properties
>> to something more descriptive than:
>>
>> providerName=Eclipse.org
>>
>> For modeling we're changing it to
>>
>> providerName=Eclipse Modeling Project
>>
>> Note that there is a general expectation that PMC leads will
>> communicate these issues planning with their subproject leads. If
>> that isn't happening, i.e., if the above issue is a surprise for you,
>> then it's time to reestablish your communication channels with your
>> PMC leads.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ed
>>
>>
>> Randy Hudson wrote:
>>> Is this another poll?
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> -Randy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas Hallgren
>>> <thomas@xxxxxxx>
>>> Sent by: To
>>> cross-project-iss Cross project issues
>>> ues-dev-bounces@e <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.o
>>> clipse.org rg>
>>> cc
>>>
>>> 11/27/2008 11:11 Subject
>>> AM Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
>>> Galileo Must Do's: How much Rules? -
>>> Results are in
>>> Please respond to
>>> Cross project
>>> issues
>>> <cross-project-is
>>> sues-dev@eclipse.
>>> org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> 35 people participated, the majority voting for "Guidance" through
>>> rules and "Ok to have rules since we all gain from the train". Looks
>>> like the PC is doing the right thing after all. Thanks, Planning
>>> Council!
>>> Maybe that is jumping to conclusions? Don't forget that there are over 900
>>> committers that didn't vote at all. What does that mean?
>>>
>>> a) They didn't vote because they all agree with PMC's decisions
>>> b) They didn't vote because they want to spend as little time as possible
>>> on rules and bureaucracy
>>>
>>> My guess would be the latter for the most part and that the 35 that did
>>> vote have an interest in this that is way above average.
>>>
>>> Just my 0.02$
>>>
>>> Thomas Hallgren
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>>> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>>> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
