I tend to agree with this. A more representative simrel governance body would be leads of all participating projects.
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Question on Kepler SR1 release review
On 8/14/2013 3:15 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
I don't remember that being the decision. Another thing that doesn't work with projects that want to ship more often and want to update the corresponding EPP package with that release.
At the risk of overstating things, I don't think the Planning Council equally represents the interests of the many projects that participate in the simultaneous release. That is, I would say that the interests of the larger, more well-established projects and their consumers (e.g. platform, strategic developers, etc) are overrepresented on the Planning Council, and this has resulted in decisions that are counter to the increasing needs for innovation from newer/smaller projects...e.g. to ship more often, provide more innovation in tooling/IDE, have fewer 'must have' SR requirements because of resource limitations, etc.
I don't want these comments to be construed as a criticism of chair David Williams, or even of the existing Planning Council. IMHO, the problem is more structural.