Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [] anotherArchitecture councilnomination

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.
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

From: [] On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Sent: Freitag, 07. März 2008 16:51
Subject: Re: [] anotherArchitecture councilnomination

Ed, Martin,
The current Eclipse Development Process ( 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]

Back to the top