Hi Everyone,
The draft
Science charter (Google doc) is all marked up at the moment,
but I'll go in and clean that up and capture comments &
discussion in the wiki.
In today's meeting there were a few key changes we propose making to
the draft charter that I wanted to share here on the mailing list.
1) Widening the scope
The charter draft was somewhat focused on RCP applications. The
group agreed we should widen it.
The team recognized there will almost certainly be different areas
of specialization or sub-groups within the group. For what it's
worth, we'll start with the Eclipse Technology top level project
(TLP) for convenience, but Science may have multiple TLP's in the
future.
2) Add Guest members
The team agreed with the proposal to add a guest member level. Guest
are invited by the Steering Committee for 1 year terms and might be
Eclipse Foundation Associate members in the case of Academic
Institutions & Government agencies as per the Eclipse Working
Group process.
Consensus was not reached as to whether Guest members should have
voting rights or not. A compromise was suggested to leave it to the
Steering Committee to bestow voting rights or not when adding
guests. I'm going to use lazy consensus here & suggest we do
that... if you are NOT OK with this idea, please speak up ASAP.
3) The "right" resource level
There were many options to distinguish Steering Committee members
from Participant members. The current proposal to do so based on
resources contributed seemed to hold up to scrutiny, however
consensus on the exact resource level could not be reached yet.
Some felt 2 people was too much. Some felt 2 might be doable
depending on how you count effort. I'd like to bring the discussion
here to the list to get input from the wider group & give people
more time to think about it and weigh in. What is the right level
& counting mechanism? This doesn't have to be heavyweight.
Kind regards,
Andrew
|