Home » Archived » Board committer reps » The First 100 Days
| The First 100 Days [message #2861] |
Thu, 19 April 2007 15:54  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: wassimm.ca.ibm.com
First, I would like to congratulate all committer reps on their election
to the board, and I am very pleased that, even before the term started,
several communication channels have already been established to
communicate with their constituents.
I am a student of government (and by that I mean that I watch AC 360 and
the Situation Room on CNN :), and I know that the first 100 days of an
elected term tends to be the most exciting and productive. It's all about
debating fresh and new ideas with enough time left in the term to make
them happen or push for them to happen.
So I would like to take this opportunity to ask each committer
representative the following questions in an effort to help us get a sense
of the what to expect on the road ahead:
1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to push
for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term (ie. in
the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's so important?
2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of the
year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More generally, how do
we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as to
what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on your
nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of your
responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is the
position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in for a
surprise?
3. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted position.
You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your LinkedIn profile,
you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and you get a chance to
start every conversation by saying "Now that I am on the board of
directors..." and annoy the heck out of your co-workers. So in short, it
must be a lot of fun :).
Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care about
that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not very
crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything about it?
It would be best if we got individual answers from the reps instead of one
collective answer on behalf of the rest. After all, each rep has a seat
on the board.
Thank you in advance,
Wassim
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #2882 is a reply to message #2861] |
Fri, 20 April 2007 12:59  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000602060708060802090808
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Wassim,
I had to take some time to consult with my campaign manager/press
release spokesperson (who shall remain nameless) before I could
respond. Oddly enough, he/she seems to think your way of stirring the
pot is highly commendable, whereas I have my occasional doubts.
Wassim Melhem wrote:
> First, I would like to congratulate all committer reps on their
> election to the board, and I am very pleased that, even before the
> term started, several communication channels have already been
> established to communicate with their constituents.
It was a very close election. Almost too close too call, but given that
the five candidates were actually running for five positions, not the
expected four, there were no losers. Isn't that nice? Although the
communication channels are now open, the constituents themselves have
been glaringly quiet. Does this mean that everyone is happy and there
are no issues for the committer representatives to pursue?
>
> I am a student of government (and by that I mean that I watch AC 360
> and the Situation Room on CNN :), and I know that the first 100 days
> of an elected term tends to be the most exciting and productive. It's
> all about debating fresh and new ideas with enough time left in the
> term to make them happen or push for them to happen.
Usually folks get elected for more than 365 days though, so it's good
you're doing the review after only 20 days.
>
> So I would like to take this opportunity to ask each committer
> representative the following questions in an effort to help us get a
> sense of the what to expect on the road ahead:
>
> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to
> push for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term
> (ie. in the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's
> so important?
Personally I feel the IP process is still taking far too long and I'd
like to understand why that is and what can be done about it. (Does the
foundation need more staff?) The new parallel IP process that last
year's committer reps helped bring to fruition is a great when you can
take advantage of it (which is only the case for incubating projects).
In order to ensure that I can take advantage of it, I've kept the EMFT
project around as a permanently incubating satellite project for EMF.
Another related issue that I'm also bothered by is the fact that the
IPZilla process is not transparent enough since IPZilla reports can only
be viewed by committers; I've had to act as a mail router between the
IPZilla and the external contributors (folks who are yet to become
committers) forwarding questions and appending back the replies. I'm not
a very good mail router (since I'm not nearly as organized as I should
be), so that caused some additional delays that were purely my own fault.
There are apparently also some IP changes in the works, which resulted
in much concern for the Modeling PMC with regard to Teneo. You can look
at this note chain to see the details:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg00305.h tml
I'll want to ensure that any changes don't adversely impact the
established community.
>
> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of
> the year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More
> generally, how do we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
I'm not sure yet how much effect we can have. For example, if the only
solution to the IP problem is to hire more staff and there is no money
for the foundation to hire that staff, have we failed in our goal as
committer reps? I suppose so, but who could really do better?
>
> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as
> to what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on
> your nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of
> your responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is
> the position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in
> for a surprise?
It's pretty much what I expected. You might want to review my vision
statement again before you read my additional comments:
http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=merks
< http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=merks>
I would really like to take forward the issues that committers feel are
important, so I'm hoping that committers will speak out and let us know
what issues are near and dear to their hearts. Failing that, I'll
mainly pursue the ones near and dear to my own. :-) Certainly the recent
issue with Teneo's use of Hibernate and whether that will be disallowed
in the future because of LGPL concerns is a case where I believe
committer rights are very important to protect. I want to see the
community grow and be more inclusive and I'm very concerned if the
opposite trend might occur instead. It's a perfect example of needing
the right balance of rules.
The EMF team and I continue to do our part to make Europa a success and
of course there are many others doing the same. I also continue to
answer many newsgroup questions, including platform and newcomer
questions (or pretty much any question for which I might be able to
contribute). I believe the Modeling project overall is doing an
excellent job helping to diversify the community; I don't have
statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if we are in fact the most
diverse project in terms of committers from a multitude of different
organizations, excluding the Tools and Technology which are diverse by
virtue of their catch-all nature).
> 3. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted
> position. You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your
> LinkedIn profile, you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and
> you get a chance to start every conversation by saying "Now that I am
> on the board of directors..." and annoy the heck out of your
> co-workers. So in short, it must be a lot of fun :).
Yeah. It's totally cool to be able to do that as necessary, although I
don't normally make a point of foisting my status in the face of others;
my e-mail footers do not contain such information and I don't intend to
start now. I just draw the line at being called Mr. Ed for obvious
reasons; at that point I insist on Dr. Ed instead, which I've found some
people will just shorten to Dred.
> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care
> about that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not
> very crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything
> about it?
I think that's because being a board member is a lot of work, it opens
you up for public scrutiny and eventually perhaps even criticism, and as
an individual it's not all that easy to accomplish all the things you
want to accomplish as you stretch yourself thinner and thinner. Also,
committers tend to be developers, not managers, and developers tend to
like to spend as much time as possible developing and hence will tend to
avoid things that cut into that time. But I've learned over the years
that to a great extent, politics makes the world go around, and ignoring
that leaves you at the whims of others. Being right or having the best
technology are not sufficient if you can't make a convincing case to
influence the thoughts of others.
>
> It would be best if we got individual answers from the reps instead of
> one collective answer on behalf of the rest. After all, each rep has
> a seat on the board.
Big surprised that I answered first hey?
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Wassim
>
--------------000602060708060802090808
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Wassim,<br>
<br>
I had to take some time to consult with my campaign manager/press
release spokesperson (who shall remain nameless) before I could
respond.
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #4246 is a reply to message #2861] |
Thu, 26 April 2007 08:26 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: zx.us.ibm.com
I apologize for the slow response, I'm usually really on top of these
things but you literally posted this right before I was boarding a plane
for Eclipse Forum Europe and I've been jetlagged for awhile thinking
about this issue. I gave it some long thought and here's my response.
(No excuses next time though, I deserve 20 lashes ;p)
> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to push
> for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term (ie.
> in the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's so
> important?
Personally, I have my own issues, but as a committer representative,
it's my job to represent the committer's interests. The single most
important issue for me is to make sure we have open channels for
committers (like this newsgroup) available for committers to post about
their needs and me as a committer rep to act on these issues. I think
this is something committer reps haven't done in the past and has hurt
the image of what exactly is a committer rep and why it should be an
important position. I mean, if I have only my issues to push, I'm not
really a committer rep, I'm just some guy on the board with my own agenda.
If I could help make the committer representative a truly important and
USEFUL (ie., things get accomplished) position that people would want to
run for, than I have accomplished my goal of giving committers a voice.
Because, when it comes down to it in the end, committers are the driving
force (including the heart) of Eclipse, and that's why this issue is so
important to me.
> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of the
> year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More generally, how
> do we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
As per #1, I think its easy to quantitate success. I'm a social
creature, If I see more than 5 nominees next time for committer reps
(preferably at least double), I think I as committer rep will have
succeeded.
If committers don't see a benefit to give a voice to issues via the
committer reps, than I have personally failed as a committer
representative (and an outgoing Eclipse community member :P)
> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as
> to what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on
> your nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of
> your responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is
> the position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in
> for a surprise?
It's pretty much what I have thought it would be so far. My vision
statement
( http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=aniszczyk)
contains accurate issues most important to me, upholding and building
a culture of quality in Eclipse. Some of my other interests may be hard
to implement as a committer representative because they represent a
scope that is outside of a committer reps role (ie., building bridges
with other projects, creating a eclipse world tour is complicated by
budget and other issues).
> 4. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted
> position. You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your
> LinkedIn profile, you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and you
> get a chance to start every conversation by saying "Now that I am on the
> board of directors..." and annoy the heck out of your co-workers. So in
> short, it must be a lot of fun :).
> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care about
> that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not very
> crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything about it?
*chuckle*, very funny Wassim :)
However, the issue of committers not caring is paramount to me, as
stated in my response to #1
How do I plan to solve these issues? Communication and Communication.
Committers need to be aware that first committer representatives exist
(heck, for the longest time I didn't even know there were reps let alone
who they were or what they did), they are willing to listen/help and
they have the desire to act based on committer issues.
Thanks for reading.
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #4665 is a reply to message #2861] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 22:09 |
 Darin Swanson
Messages: 2386
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
First sorry for the delay...
"Wassim Melhem" <wassimm@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:2edbf871267f2e5c485cfe88f339e739$1@www.eclipse.org...
> First, I would like to congratulate all committer reps on their election
> to the board, and I am very pleased that, even before the term started,
> several communication channels have already been established to
> communicate with their constituents.
Thanks Wassim.
The channels are open but appear to be one way communication...tap tap is
this mike on?
I have had 2 contacts from a committer looking for help. All I can assume is
that the world is basically a happy place for everyone?
Without contributions from the committers, we can only address the problems
that we are personally aware of.
> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to push
> for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term (ie. in
> the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's so important?
I have had first hand experience with the IP policy as a committer. I now
have experience with it as a board member.
See my blog post at for the details:
http://eclipse-committer-reps.blogspot.com/2007/04/experienc es-with-eclipse-ip-process.html
Simply put: I feel it is important as it appears to be effecting Eclipse
committers in a negative way.
But again I feel it is important to re-iterate that we need input / feedback
from the Eclipse committers. Committer reps happen to be committers but we
are a very small sample.
> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of the
> year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More generally, how do
> we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
Looking back at my platform:
http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=swanson
Man, I was ambitious...should have paced myself for a multi-year spread.
I see our role is not necessarily to resolve an issue but to enable
discussion and raise awareness of problems and potential solutions.
Possibly these are not issues that bother most committers. If so, then we
likely should not be spending time and effort on it.
It is not a failure to run a race just because you did not win :-)
My metrics for success:
Do you know what the committer reps are trying to achieve and why?
Do you feel you can interact with the committer reps in a timely manner?
Issues come and go.
> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as to
> what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on your
> nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of your
> responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is the
> position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in for a
> surprise?
No real surprises so far. But I had been expertly prepped by a previous
committer representative Kai-Uwe Maetzel.
>
> 3. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted position.
> You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your LinkedIn profile,
> you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and you get a chance to
> start every conversation by saying "Now that I am on the board of
> directors..." and annoy the heck out of your co-workers. So in short, it
> must be a lot of fun :).
An example of one does not necessarily prove the statement :-)
> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care about
> that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not very
> crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything about
> it?
Committers are busy people. I know I had to think long and hard before
accepting my nomination.
We are working hard to raise the awareness of the committers that they have
representation on the board.
Committer reps need to blog, committer reps need to use the newsgroup,
committer reps need to be at conferences.
I am trying to do all three.
> Thank you in advance,
> Wassim
Thank you
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #4734 is a reply to message #4665] |
Fri, 11 May 2007 05:05 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: slewis.composent.com
Hi Darin and all reps,
Here's a suggestion (from a jaded former rep)...
I like the blogging/mail lists/wiki/newsgroups/etc blitz, but I think
that you would get more 'loose tongues' from the committers if you had
some f2f and/or real-time online discussions...specifically about
committer needs and desires. For example, IRC or some other group
chat...perhaps audio conferences on occasion. People are generally less
formal in such real-time communication, and I think in this case it
would be a good thing for getting more from constituents.
I would also urge people to support this bug by adding themselves to cc:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=126089
and an observation...
I think that there are many committers that either don't know that they
have active representation on the Board, or don't realize that they can
have some say/input into what you do...and that what you do can sway the
Board and the Foundation policy significantly. I think making the
committers aware of this and actively providing input (beyond a small
vocal subset) is going to take more 'outreach' from you.
WRT the IP policy...the foundation IP policy is of added value, but IMHO
it's most valuable to the commercial members and most costly to the
committers...and when it comes to shared resources (all the Foundation's
budget and/or time) the over-emphasis on the added value for the
commercial membership often comes at the committer's expense.
I happen to believe this is a little out of balance at the moment. I
don't think it's anyone's fault, but to my taste the needs of the
committers (growning the committer community, resources for effective
work, both individually and jointly, innovation, etc) are getting less
attention and priority than they should relative to the commercial
interest's needs (clean IP, reliable infrastructure, room for commercial
offerings, exposure/marketing, etc). Believe me, I don't want to 'hurt'
either of these ecosystems (commercial or committer)...I just don't
think they are quite in balance right now, and I think the committer
reps are the only means the committers have to get them in balance.
My $0.03.
Scott
Darin Swanson wrote:
> First sorry for the delay...
>
> "Wassim Melhem" <wassimm@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:2edbf871267f2e5c485cfe88f339e739$1@www.eclipse.org...
>> First, I would like to congratulate all committer reps on their election
>> to the board, and I am very pleased that, even before the term started,
>> several communication channels have already been established to
>> communicate with their constituents.
>
> Thanks Wassim.
> The channels are open but appear to be one way communication...tap tap is
> this mike on?
> I have had 2 contacts from a committer looking for help. All I can assume is
> that the world is basically a happy place for everyone?
> Without contributions from the committers, we can only address the problems
> that we are personally aware of.
>
>> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to push
>> for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term (ie. in
>> the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's so important?
>
> I have had first hand experience with the IP policy as a committer. I now
> have experience with it as a board member.
> See my blog post at for the details:
> http://eclipse-committer-reps.blogspot.com/2007/04/experienc es-with-eclipse-ip-process.html
>
> Simply put: I feel it is important as it appears to be effecting Eclipse
> committers in a negative way.
> But again I feel it is important to re-iterate that we need input / feedback
> from the Eclipse committers. Committer reps happen to be committers but we
> are a very small sample.
>
>> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of the
>> year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More generally, how do
>> we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
>
> Looking back at my platform:
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=swanson
> Man, I was ambitious...should have paced myself for a multi-year spread.
> I see our role is not necessarily to resolve an issue but to enable
> discussion and raise awareness of problems and potential solutions.
>
> Possibly these are not issues that bother most committers. If so, then we
> likely should not be spending time and effort on it.
> It is not a failure to run a race just because you did not win :-)
>
> My metrics for success:
> Do you know what the committer reps are trying to achieve and why?
> Do you feel you can interact with the committer reps in a timely manner?
> Issues come and go.
>
>> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as to
>> what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on your
>> nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of your
>> responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is the
>> position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in for a
>> surprise?
>
> No real surprises so far. But I had been expertly prepped by a previous
> committer representative Kai-Uwe Maetzel.
>
>> 3. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted position.
>> You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your LinkedIn profile,
>> you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and you get a chance to
>> start every conversation by saying "Now that I am on the board of
>> directors..." and annoy the heck out of your co-workers. So in short, it
>> must be a lot of fun :).
>
> An example of one does not necessarily prove the statement :-)
>
>> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care about
>> that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not very
>> crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything about
>> it?
>
> Committers are busy people. I know I had to think long and hard before
> accepting my nomination.
> We are working hard to raise the awareness of the committers that they have
> representation on the board.
> Committer reps need to blog, committer reps need to use the newsgroup,
> committer reps need to be at conferences.
> I am trying to do all three.
>
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Wassim
> Thank you
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #4803 is a reply to message #4734] |
Fri, 11 May 2007 13:43 |
Darin Swanson
Messages: 2386
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
The mike is on ;-)
Thanks Scott...I appreciate your feedback, impressions and suggestions.
Some minor comments in-line.
"Scott Lewis" <slewis@composent.com> wrote in message
news:f20tid$3db$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi Darin and all reps,
>
> Here's a suggestion (from a jaded former rep)...
>
> I like the blogging/mail lists/wiki/newsgroups/etc blitz, but I think that
> you would get more 'loose tongues' from the committers if you had some f2f
> and/or real-time online discussions...specifically about committer needs
> and desires. For example, IRC or some other group chat...perhaps audio
> conferences on occasion. People are generally less formal in such
> real-time communication, and I think in this case it would be a good thing
> for getting more from constituents.
> I would also urge people to support this bug by adding themselves to cc:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=126089
>
> and an observation...
>
> I think that there are many committers that either don't know that they
> have active representation on the Board, or don't realize that they can
> have some say/input into what you do...and that what you do can sway the
> Board and the Foundation policy significantly. I think making the
> committers aware of this and actively providing input (beyond a small
> vocal subset) is going to take more 'outreach' from you.
Something we can look into with the Foundation.
I did say:
>> committer reps need to be at conferences.
The foundation sponsored a new committer bootcamp at EclipseCon which I
attended and thought was very useful.
I personally would like to see this continue and grow at the Eclipse
gatherings such as the Eclipse members meeting in September and the Eclipse
Summit in October.
>
> WRT the IP policy...the foundation IP policy is of added value, but IMHO
> it's most valuable to the commercial members and most costly to the
> committers...and when it comes to shared resources (all the Foundation's
> budget and/or time) the over-emphasis on the added value for the
> commercial membership often comes at the committer's expense.
>
> I happen to believe this is a little out of balance at the moment. I
> don't think it's anyone's fault, but to my taste the needs of the
> committers (growning the committer community, resources for effective
> work, both individually and jointly, innovation, etc) are getting less
> attention and priority than they should relative to the commercial
> interest's needs (clean IP, reliable infrastructure, room for commercial
> offerings, exposure/marketing, etc). Believe me, I don't want to 'hurt'
> either of these ecosystems (commercial or committer)...I just don't think
> they are quite in balance right now, and I think the committer reps are
> the only means the committers have to get them in balance.
>
> My $0.03.
> Scott
>
>
> Darin Swanson wrote:
>> First sorry for the delay...
>>
>> "Wassim Melhem" <wassimm@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
>> news:2edbf871267f2e5c485cfe88f339e739$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>> First, I would like to congratulate all committer reps on their election
>>> to the board, and I am very pleased that, even before the term started,
>>> several communication channels have already been established to
>>> communicate with their constituents.
>>
>> Thanks Wassim.
>> The channels are open but appear to be one way communication...tap tap is
>> this mike on?
>> I have had 2 contacts from a committer looking for help. All I can assume
>> is that the world is basically a happy place for everyone?
>> Without contributions from the committers, we can only address the
>> problems that we are personally aware of.
>>
>>> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to push
>>> for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term (ie.
>>> in the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's so
>>> important?
>>
>> I have had first hand experience with the IP policy as a committer. I now
>> have experience with it as a board member.
>> See my blog post at for the details:
>> http://eclipse-committer-reps.blogspot.com/2007/04/experienc es-with-eclipse-ip-process.html
>>
>> Simply put: I feel it is important as it appears to be effecting Eclipse
>> committers in a negative way.
>> But again I feel it is important to re-iterate that we need input /
>> feedback from the Eclipse committers. Committer reps happen to be
>> committers but we are a very small sample.
>>
>>> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of the
>>> year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More generally, how
>>> do we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
>>
>> Looking back at my platform:
>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=swanson
>> Man, I was ambitious...should have paced myself for a multi-year spread.
>> I see our role is not necessarily to resolve an issue but to enable
>> discussion and raise awareness of problems and potential solutions.
>>
>> Possibly these are not issues that bother most committers. If so, then we
>> likely should not be spending time and effort on it.
>> It is not a failure to run a race just because you did not win :-)
>>
>> My metrics for success:
>> Do you know what the committer reps are trying to achieve and why?
>> Do you feel you can interact with the committer reps in a timely
>> manner? Issues come and go.
>>
>>> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as
>>> to what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on
>>> your nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of
>>> your responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is
>>> the position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in
>>> for a surprise?
>>
>> No real surprises so far. But I had been expertly prepped by a previous
>> committer representative Kai-Uwe Maetzel.
>>
>>> 3. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted
>>> position. You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your
>>> LinkedIn profile, you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and you
>>> get a chance to start every conversation by saying "Now that I am on the
>>> board of directors..." and annoy the heck out of your co-workers. So in
>>> short, it must be a lot of fun :).
>>
>> An example of one does not necessarily prove the statement :-)
>>
>>> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care about
>>> that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not very
>>> crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything about
>>> it?
>>
>> Committers are busy people. I know I had to think long and hard before
>> accepting my nomination.
>> We are working hard to raise the awareness of the committers that they
>> have representation on the board.
>> Committer reps need to blog, committer reps need to use the newsgroup,
>> committer reps need to be at conferences.
>> I am trying to do all three.
>>
>>> Thank you in advance,
>>> Wassim
>> Thank you
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #560269 is a reply to message #2861] |
Fri, 20 April 2007 12:59 |
Ed Merks
Messages: 33137
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000602060708060802090808
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Wassim,
I had to take some time to consult with my campaign manager/press
release spokesperson (who shall remain nameless) before I could
respond. Oddly enough, he/she seems to think your way of stirring the
pot is highly commendable, whereas I have my occasional doubts.
Wassim Melhem wrote:
> First, I would like to congratulate all committer reps on their
> election to the board, and I am very pleased that, even before the
> term started, several communication channels have already been
> established to communicate with their constituents.
It was a very close election. Almost too close too call, but given that
the five candidates were actually running for five positions, not the
expected four, there were no losers. Isn't that nice? Although the
communication channels are now open, the constituents themselves have
been glaringly quiet. Does this mean that everyone is happy and there
are no issues for the committer representatives to pursue?
>
> I am a student of government (and by that I mean that I watch AC 360
> and the Situation Room on CNN :), and I know that the first 100 days
> of an elected term tends to be the most exciting and productive. It's
> all about debating fresh and new ideas with enough time left in the
> term to make them happen or push for them to happen.
Usually folks get elected for more than 365 days though, so it's good
you're doing the review after only 20 days.
>
> So I would like to take this opportunity to ask each committer
> representative the following questions in an effort to help us get a
> sense of the what to expect on the road ahead:
>
> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to
> push for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term
> (ie. in the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's
> so important?
Personally I feel the IP process is still taking far too long and I'd
like to understand why that is and what can be done about it. (Does the
foundation need more staff?) The new parallel IP process that last
year's committer reps helped bring to fruition is a great when you can
take advantage of it (which is only the case for incubating projects).
In order to ensure that I can take advantage of it, I've kept the EMFT
project around as a permanently incubating satellite project for EMF.
Another related issue that I'm also bothered by is the fact that the
IPZilla process is not transparent enough since IPZilla reports can only
be viewed by committers; I've had to act as a mail router between the
IPZilla and the external contributors (folks who are yet to become
committers) forwarding questions and appending back the replies. I'm not
a very good mail router (since I'm not nearly as organized as I should
be), so that caused some additional delays that were purely my own fault.
There are apparently also some IP changes in the works, which resulted
in much concern for the Modeling PMC with regard to Teneo. You can look
at this note chain to see the details:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg00305.h tml
I'll want to ensure that any changes don't adversely impact the
established community.
>
> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of
> the year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More
> generally, how do we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
I'm not sure yet how much effect we can have. For example, if the only
solution to the IP problem is to hire more staff and there is no money
for the foundation to hire that staff, have we failed in our goal as
committer reps? I suppose so, but who could really do better?
>
> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as
> to what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on
> your nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of
> your responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is
> the position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in
> for a surprise?
It's pretty much what I expected. You might want to review my vision
statement again before you read my additional comments:
http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=merks
< http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=merks>
I would really like to take forward the issues that committers feel are
important, so I'm hoping that committers will speak out and let us know
what issues are near and dear to their hearts. Failing that, I'll
mainly pursue the ones near and dear to my own. :-) Certainly the recent
issue with Teneo's use of Hibernate and whether that will be disallowed
in the future because of LGPL concerns is a case where I believe
committer rights are very important to protect. I want to see the
community grow and be more inclusive and I'm very concerned if the
opposite trend might occur instead. It's a perfect example of needing
the right balance of rules.
The EMF team and I continue to do our part to make Europa a success and
of course there are many others doing the same. I also continue to
answer many newsgroup questions, including platform and newcomer
questions (or pretty much any question for which I might be able to
contribute). I believe the Modeling project overall is doing an
excellent job helping to diversify the community; I don't have
statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if we are in fact the most
diverse project in terms of committers from a multitude of different
organizations, excluding the Tools and Technology which are diverse by
virtue of their catch-all nature).
> 3. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted
> position. You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your
> LinkedIn profile, you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and
> you get a chance to start every conversation by saying "Now that I am
> on the board of directors..." and annoy the heck out of your
> co-workers. So in short, it must be a lot of fun :).
Yeah. It's totally cool to be able to do that as necessary, although I
don't normally make a point of foisting my status in the face of others;
my e-mail footers do not contain such information and I don't intend to
start now. I just draw the line at being called Mr. Ed for obvious
reasons; at that point I insist on Dr. Ed instead, which I've found some
people will just shorten to Dred.
> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care
> about that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not
> very crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything
> about it?
I think that's because being a board member is a lot of work, it opens
you up for public scrutiny and eventually perhaps even criticism, and as
an individual it's not all that easy to accomplish all the things you
want to accomplish as you stretch yourself thinner and thinner. Also,
committers tend to be developers, not managers, and developers tend to
like to spend as much time as possible developing and hence will tend to
avoid things that cut into that time. But I've learned over the years
that to a great extent, politics makes the world go around, and ignoring
that leaves you at the whims of others. Being right or having the best
technology are not sufficient if you can't make a convincing case to
influence the thoughts of others.
>
> It would be best if we got individual answers from the reps instead of
> one collective answer on behalf of the rest. After all, each rep has
> a seat on the board.
Big surprised that I answered first hey?
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Wassim
>
--------------000602060708060802090808
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Wassim,<br>
<br>
I had to take some time to consult with my campaign manager/press
release spokesperson (who shall remain nameless) before I could
respond.
Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #560311 is a reply to message #2861] |
Thu, 26 April 2007 08:26 |
Chris Aniszczyk
Messages: 674
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I apologize for the slow response, I'm usually really on top of these
things but you literally posted this right before I was boarding a plane
for Eclipse Forum Europe and I've been jetlagged for awhile thinking
about this issue. I gave it some long thought and here's my response.
(No excuses next time though, I deserve 20 lashes ;p)
> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to push
> for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term (ie.
> in the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's so
> important?
Personally, I have my own issues, but as a committer representative,
it's my job to represent the committer's interests. The single most
important issue for me is to make sure we have open channels for
committers (like this newsgroup) available for committers to post about
their needs and me as a committer rep to act on these issues. I think
this is something committer reps haven't done in the past and has hurt
the image of what exactly is a committer rep and why it should be an
important position. I mean, if I have only my issues to push, I'm not
really a committer rep, I'm just some guy on the board with my own agenda.
If I could help make the committer representative a truly important and
USEFUL (ie., things get accomplished) position that people would want to
run for, than I have accomplished my goal of giving committers a voice.
Because, when it comes down to it in the end, committers are the driving
force (including the heart) of Eclipse, and that's why this issue is so
important to me.
> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of the
> year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More generally, how
> do we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
As per #1, I think its easy to quantitate success. I'm a social
creature, If I see more than 5 nominees next time for committer reps
(preferably at least double), I think I as committer rep will have
succeeded.
If committers don't see a benefit to give a voice to issues via the
committer reps, than I have personally failed as a committer
representative (and an outgoing Eclipse community member :P)
> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as
> to what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on
> your nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of
> your responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is
> the position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in
> for a surprise?
It's pretty much what I have thought it would be so far. My vision
statement
( http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=aniszczyk)
contains accurate issues most important to me, upholding and building
a culture of quality in Eclipse. Some of my other interests may be hard
to implement as a committer representative because they represent a
scope that is outside of a committer reps role (ie., building bridges
with other projects, creating a eclipse world tour is complicated by
budget and other issues).
> 4. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted
> position. You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your
> LinkedIn profile, you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and you
> get a chance to start every conversation by saying "Now that I am on the
> board of directors..." and annoy the heck out of your co-workers. So in
> short, it must be a lot of fun :).
> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care about
> that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not very
> crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything about it?
*chuckle*, very funny Wassim :)
However, the issue of committers not caring is paramount to me, as
stated in my response to #1
How do I plan to solve these issues? Communication and Communication.
Committers need to be aware that first committer representatives exist
(heck, for the longest time I didn't even know there were reps let alone
who they were or what they did), they are willing to listen/help and
they have the desire to act based on committer issues.
Thanks for reading.
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #560347 is a reply to message #2861] |
Thu, 10 May 2007 22:09 |
Darin Swanson
Messages: 2386
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
First sorry for the delay...
"Wassim Melhem" <wassimm@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:2edbf871267f2e5c485cfe88f339e739$1@www.eclipse.org...
> First, I would like to congratulate all committer reps on their election
> to the board, and I am very pleased that, even before the term started,
> several communication channels have already been established to
> communicate with their constituents.
Thanks Wassim.
The channels are open but appear to be one way communication...tap tap is
this mike on?
I have had 2 contacts from a committer looking for help. All I can assume is
that the world is basically a happy place for everyone?
Without contributions from the committers, we can only address the problems
that we are personally aware of.
> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to push
> for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term (ie. in
> the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's so important?
I have had first hand experience with the IP policy as a committer. I now
have experience with it as a board member.
See my blog post at for the details:
http://eclipse-committer-reps.blogspot.com/2007/04/experienc es-with-eclipse-ip-process.html
Simply put: I feel it is important as it appears to be effecting Eclipse
committers in a negative way.
But again I feel it is important to re-iterate that we need input / feedback
from the Eclipse committers. Committer reps happen to be committers but we
are a very small sample.
> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of the
> year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More generally, how do
> we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
Looking back at my platform:
http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=swanson
Man, I was ambitious...should have paced myself for a multi-year spread.
I see our role is not necessarily to resolve an issue but to enable
discussion and raise awareness of problems and potential solutions.
Possibly these are not issues that bother most committers. If so, then we
likely should not be spending time and effort on it.
It is not a failure to run a race just because you did not win :-)
My metrics for success:
Do you know what the committer reps are trying to achieve and why?
Do you feel you can interact with the committer reps in a timely manner?
Issues come and go.
> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as to
> what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on your
> nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of your
> responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is the
> position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in for a
> surprise?
No real surprises so far. But I had been expertly prepped by a previous
committer representative Kai-Uwe Maetzel.
>
> 3. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted position.
> You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your LinkedIn profile,
> you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and you get a chance to
> start every conversation by saying "Now that I am on the board of
> directors..." and annoy the heck out of your co-workers. So in short, it
> must be a lot of fun :).
An example of one does not necessarily prove the statement :-)
> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care about
> that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not very
> crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything about
> it?
Committers are busy people. I know I had to think long and hard before
accepting my nomination.
We are working hard to raise the awareness of the committers that they have
representation on the board.
Committer reps need to blog, committer reps need to use the newsgroup,
committer reps need to be at conferences.
I am trying to do all three.
> Thank you in advance,
> Wassim
Thank you
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #560353 is a reply to message #4665] |
Fri, 11 May 2007 05:05 |
Scott Lewis
Messages: 1038
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Darin and all reps,
Here's a suggestion (from a jaded former rep)...
I like the blogging/mail lists/wiki/newsgroups/etc blitz, but I think
that you would get more 'loose tongues' from the committers if you had
some f2f and/or real-time online discussions...specifically about
committer needs and desires. For example, IRC or some other group
chat...perhaps audio conferences on occasion. People are generally less
formal in such real-time communication, and I think in this case it
would be a good thing for getting more from constituents.
I would also urge people to support this bug by adding themselves to cc:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=126089
and an observation...
I think that there are many committers that either don't know that they
have active representation on the Board, or don't realize that they can
have some say/input into what you do...and that what you do can sway the
Board and the Foundation policy significantly. I think making the
committers aware of this and actively providing input (beyond a small
vocal subset) is going to take more 'outreach' from you.
WRT the IP policy...the foundation IP policy is of added value, but IMHO
it's most valuable to the commercial members and most costly to the
committers...and when it comes to shared resources (all the Foundation's
budget and/or time) the over-emphasis on the added value for the
commercial membership often comes at the committer's expense.
I happen to believe this is a little out of balance at the moment. I
don't think it's anyone's fault, but to my taste the needs of the
committers (growning the committer community, resources for effective
work, both individually and jointly, innovation, etc) are getting less
attention and priority than they should relative to the commercial
interest's needs (clean IP, reliable infrastructure, room for commercial
offerings, exposure/marketing, etc). Believe me, I don't want to 'hurt'
either of these ecosystems (commercial or committer)...I just don't
think they are quite in balance right now, and I think the committer
reps are the only means the committers have to get them in balance.
My $0.03.
Scott
Darin Swanson wrote:
> First sorry for the delay...
>
> "Wassim Melhem" <wassimm@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:2edbf871267f2e5c485cfe88f339e739$1@www.eclipse.org...
>> First, I would like to congratulate all committer reps on their election
>> to the board, and I am very pleased that, even before the term started,
>> several communication channels have already been established to
>> communicate with their constituents.
>
> Thanks Wassim.
> The channels are open but appear to be one way communication...tap tap is
> this mike on?
> I have had 2 contacts from a committer looking for help. All I can assume is
> that the world is basically a happy place for everyone?
> Without contributions from the committers, we can only address the problems
> that we are personally aware of.
>
>> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to push
>> for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term (ie. in
>> the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's so important?
>
> I have had first hand experience with the IP policy as a committer. I now
> have experience with it as a board member.
> See my blog post at for the details:
> http://eclipse-committer-reps.blogspot.com/2007/04/experienc es-with-eclipse-ip-process.html
>
> Simply put: I feel it is important as it appears to be effecting Eclipse
> committers in a negative way.
> But again I feel it is important to re-iterate that we need input / feedback
> from the Eclipse committers. Committer reps happen to be committers but we
> are a very small sample.
>
>> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of the
>> year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More generally, how do
>> we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
>
> Looking back at my platform:
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=swanson
> Man, I was ambitious...should have paced myself for a multi-year spread.
> I see our role is not necessarily to resolve an issue but to enable
> discussion and raise awareness of problems and potential solutions.
>
> Possibly these are not issues that bother most committers. If so, then we
> likely should not be spending time and effort on it.
> It is not a failure to run a race just because you did not win :-)
>
> My metrics for success:
> Do you know what the committer reps are trying to achieve and why?
> Do you feel you can interact with the committer reps in a timely manner?
> Issues come and go.
>
>> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as to
>> what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on your
>> nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of your
>> responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is the
>> position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in for a
>> surprise?
>
> No real surprises so far. But I had been expertly prepped by a previous
> committer representative Kai-Uwe Maetzel.
>
>> 3. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted position.
>> You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your LinkedIn profile,
>> you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and you get a chance to
>> start every conversation by saying "Now that I am on the board of
>> directors..." and annoy the heck out of your co-workers. So in short, it
>> must be a lot of fun :).
>
> An example of one does not necessarily prove the statement :-)
>
>> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care about
>> that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not very
>> crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything about
>> it?
>
> Committers are busy people. I know I had to think long and hard before
> accepting my nomination.
> We are working hard to raise the awareness of the committers that they have
> representation on the board.
> Committer reps need to blog, committer reps need to use the newsgroup,
> committer reps need to be at conferences.
> I am trying to do all three.
>
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Wassim
> Thank you
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: The First 100 Days [message #560358 is a reply to message #4734] |
Fri, 11 May 2007 13:43 |
Darin Swanson
Messages: 2386
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
The mike is on ;-)
Thanks Scott...I appreciate your feedback, impressions and suggestions.
Some minor comments in-line.
"Scott Lewis" <slewis@composent.com> wrote in message
news:f20tid$3db$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi Darin and all reps,
>
> Here's a suggestion (from a jaded former rep)...
>
> I like the blogging/mail lists/wiki/newsgroups/etc blitz, but I think that
> you would get more 'loose tongues' from the committers if you had some f2f
> and/or real-time online discussions...specifically about committer needs
> and desires. For example, IRC or some other group chat...perhaps audio
> conferences on occasion. People are generally less formal in such
> real-time communication, and I think in this case it would be a good thing
> for getting more from constituents.
> I would also urge people to support this bug by adding themselves to cc:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=126089
>
> and an observation...
>
> I think that there are many committers that either don't know that they
> have active representation on the Board, or don't realize that they can
> have some say/input into what you do...and that what you do can sway the
> Board and the Foundation policy significantly. I think making the
> committers aware of this and actively providing input (beyond a small
> vocal subset) is going to take more 'outreach' from you.
Something we can look into with the Foundation.
I did say:
>> committer reps need to be at conferences.
The foundation sponsored a new committer bootcamp at EclipseCon which I
attended and thought was very useful.
I personally would like to see this continue and grow at the Eclipse
gatherings such as the Eclipse members meeting in September and the Eclipse
Summit in October.
>
> WRT the IP policy...the foundation IP policy is of added value, but IMHO
> it's most valuable to the commercial members and most costly to the
> committers...and when it comes to shared resources (all the Foundation's
> budget and/or time) the over-emphasis on the added value for the
> commercial membership often comes at the committer's expense.
>
> I happen to believe this is a little out of balance at the moment. I
> don't think it's anyone's fault, but to my taste the needs of the
> committers (growning the committer community, resources for effective
> work, both individually and jointly, innovation, etc) are getting less
> attention and priority than they should relative to the commercial
> interest's needs (clean IP, reliable infrastructure, room for commercial
> offerings, exposure/marketing, etc). Believe me, I don't want to 'hurt'
> either of these ecosystems (commercial or committer)...I just don't think
> they are quite in balance right now, and I think the committer reps are
> the only means the committers have to get them in balance.
>
> My $0.03.
> Scott
>
>
> Darin Swanson wrote:
>> First sorry for the delay...
>>
>> "Wassim Melhem" <wassimm@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
>> news:2edbf871267f2e5c485cfe88f339e739$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>> First, I would like to congratulate all committer reps on their election
>>> to the board, and I am very pleased that, even before the term started,
>>> several communication channels have already been established to
>>> communicate with their constituents.
>>
>> Thanks Wassim.
>> The channels are open but appear to be one way communication...tap tap is
>> this mike on?
>> I have had 2 contacts from a committer looking for help. All I can assume
>> is that the world is basically a happy place for everyone?
>> Without contributions from the committers, we can only address the
>> problems that we are personally aware of.
>>
>>> 1. What is the single most important issue that they would like to push
>>> for and bring up for debate in their first 100 days of their term (ie.
>>> in the first face-to-face board meeting)? Why do you feel it's so
>>> important?
>>
>> I have had first hand experience with the IP policy as a committer. I now
>> have experience with it as a board member.
>> See my blog post at for the details:
>> http://eclipse-committer-reps.blogspot.com/2007/04/experienc es-with-eclipse-ip-process.html
>>
>> Simply put: I feel it is important as it appears to be effecting Eclipse
>> committers in a negative way.
>> But again I feel it is important to re-iterate that we need input /
>> feedback from the Eclipse committers. Committer reps happen to be
>> committers but we are a very small sample.
>>
>>> 2. If issue stated in question #1 was still unresolved at the end of the
>>> year, would you consider that to be a failed term? More generally, how
>>> do we (and you) quantitate success of a term?
>>
>> Looking back at my platform:
>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/elections/candidate.php?year=2007 &id=swanson
>> Man, I was ambitious...should have paced myself for a multi-year spread.
>> I see our role is not necessarily to resolve an issue but to enable
>> discussion and raise awareness of problems and potential solutions.
>>
>> Possibly these are not issues that bother most committers. If so, then we
>> likely should not be spending time and effort on it.
>> It is not a failure to run a race just because you did not win :-)
>>
>> My metrics for success:
>> Do you know what the committer reps are trying to achieve and why?
>> Do you feel you can interact with the committer reps in a timely
>> manner? Issues come and go.
>>
>>> 3. Now that you have had some orientation by the Eclipse Foundation as
>>> to what role you are able to play, are there items that you listed on
>>> your nomination vision statement that you think is out of the scope of
>>> your responsibilities? Another way to ask the question would be: is
>>> the position so far what you thought it was going to be or were you in
>>> for a surprise?
>>
>> No real surprises so far. But I had been expertly prepped by a previous
>> committer representative Kai-Uwe Maetzel.
>>
>>> 3. Being a committer rep on the Board of Directors is a coveted
>>> position. You get to add 'Director of Eclipse Foundation' to your
>>> LinkedIn profile, you get to add it to your EclipseCon biography and you
>>> get a chance to start every conversation by saying "Now that I am on the
>>> board of directors..." and annoy the heck out of your co-workers. So in
>>> short, it must be a lot of fun :).
>>
>> An example of one does not necessarily prove the statement :-)
>>
>>> Yet for some reason, it's clear that not too many committers care about
>>> that. The vote turnout is low and the nomination field was not very
>>> crowded. Why do you think that is and do you plan to do anything about
>>> it?
>>
>> Committers are busy people. I know I had to think long and hard before
>> accepting my nomination.
>> We are working hard to raise the awareness of the committers that they
>> have representation on the board.
>> Committer reps need to blog, committer reps need to use the newsgroup,
>> committer reps need to be at conferences.
>> I am trying to do all three.
>>
>>> Thank you in advance,
>>> Wassim
>> Thank you
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 19 11:00:09 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01761 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
