Hi Bjorn,
I'm not at all talking about forced removal of EAC members,
but on
the other hand I find it confusing to see names in the list
of members
that I haven't ever met and probably won't ever meet
because they
have decided themselves to take a different
route.
For inactive committers, there is also the way to gently
ask people
whether they are still interested in their role, perhaps
that would make
sense for the EAC as well? I'm thinking about something
along the
lines of these messages I've sent to inactive TM committers
recently:
Of
course even if somebody chose to leave Eclipse Related
business
for
some time, things may change and he or she might choose to
return
eventually... or remain active even from a new role... so
there's
certainly no need to hurry, but a 3-year-membership carved in
stone
seems
a little bit odd to me, especially in the light of trying to
refresh the EAC with adding new members regularly.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project
Lead, DSDP PMC Member
Ed, Martin,
The current Eclipse Development Process (http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php#4_5_Councils)
says "Appointed members of the Architecture Council are appointed to three
year renewable terms." Given that I am in the process of revising the EDP, now
would be a good time for the community to decide on a different wording. I am
open to suggestions.
- Bjorn
Ed Merks wrote:
In general, I think we should expect a reasonable level of
participation to be a member in good standing. Should we set a bar for
that? Like attending at least 1 in every 3 meetings?
--
[end of
message]