|RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] PMC Approval Lag?|
The Tools versus Technology split still makes sense IMHO. Technology fills the need to have a default place to hold incubators while they mature. Tools fills the need to have a default place for mature projects that don’t really fit elsewhere.
However, I do agree that there are two issues that need to be addressed:
a) The PMC does need to be more active and responsive. It should also likely be fully representative of the projects it includes.
b) There are a number of projects which appear to be staying in Technology longer than they should. Once a project is mature, it should typically be looking for a new home. (Yes, there are always exceptions, but that should be the general rule.) So I think the Technology PMC should be encouraging mature projects to evaluate whether they should move. And for many of those, I would expect that Tools is the natural destination.
No, I don’t think that the AC have the authority to refactor the projects. That requires the PMCs.
Back to the top