|Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] PMC Approval Lag?|
> The Tools versus Technology split still makes sense IMHO. Technology fillsThis is our 'Eclipse Incubator' :)
> the need to have a default place to hold incubators while they mature.
> 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.
As the AC, we can merely suggest... :)
> No, I don’t think that the AC have the authority to refactor the projects.
> That requires the PMCs.
So - two items for the next AC meeting, perhaps:
1) That the Tools PMC look to expansion and staffing from more of its
2) That the Technology PMC take steps to help mature Technology
contained projects to move out from under the Technology umbrella.
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
Back to the top