Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [] PMC Approval Lag?

Now that April Fools day is about over, (on east coast) I think I can reply, without starting even more jokes.

Overall, pretty funny. But, really, I think they could have been better, so I hope these comments are taken in the spirit they are intended.

Original Joke: Architecture Council members could be appointed to be on the Tools PMC to help them out.
Improvement: Wouldn't that have been funnier if it was said that _three_ Architecture Council members be appointed, such as myself (David), Jeff, and Doug?

Original Joke:  Seems like there there might be some delay in approving CQs.
Improvement: Out of the 130 CQs approved by the Tools PMC this past year, they had to be reminded 5 times to read/approve a CQs. This 3% reminder rate is just way way out of line with other large organizations, and just simply too high for Eclipse to keep functioning. Funnier?

Original Joke: The architecture council has nothing else to do, so sure they can expand their mission to council PMCs and propose refactoring of projects.
Improvement: Would this have been funnier to say the requirements council could do this? Since they are "looking for work" anyway. Well, maybe not, maybe that's sadder.

I'm sure there's many more very funny comments that I can't cover here, because its late, I'm not feeling well, and April fools is almost over.

But I will thank you for two other things: 1. I know you meat it as satire, but all the hand wringing, gossipy nature of some of the tone, etc.,  brought back fond memories of my Grandmother, who for years and years would love to complain to anyone who would listen, that her refrigerator was making noise. I think her children were afraid to replace it because then she'd be unhappy that she had nothing to talk about. or would obsess over something even more trivial. Very fond memories. Thanks.  2. Above all, thanks for not making jokes about WTP ... those guys have thin skins and I would hate to upset them by this kind of humor where you act like they can't even hear you.

But, overall a very good read. Not as funny as our new logo, though:

Happy Fools Day!

From: "Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "" <>
Date: 04/01/2010 04:27 PM
Subject: RE: [] PMC Approval Lag?
Sent by:

Hi all,

Thanks for adding this topic to our next week's agenda...
Looks like it's going to be an exciting meeting.

>  1)  That the Tools PMC look to expansion and staffing
>      from more of its contained projects;

Worth a try, but from my personal experience trying to
get the Tools PMC do _anything_ I am not too optimistic.
It's unfortunate, but today's reality resembles what
Doug S described.

It would be a great proof of the AC's usefulness if we
could come up with a solution that works in practice,
whatever it might look like.

Refactoring projects into containers of technology that
are more related to each other seems like a good idea to
me, since it would automatically make PMC participation
more interesting for the projects. But I'm not sure
whether that will be enough of an incentive for
sponsoring companies to actually step up and invest
time into running the PMC.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Oisin Hurley
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:15 PM
To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx;
Subject: Re: [] 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.

This is our 'Eclipse Incubator' :)

> 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.


> No, I don't think that the AC have the authority to refactor the projects.
> That requires the PMCs.

As the AC, we can merely suggest... :)

So - two items for the next AC meeting, perhaps:
 1)  That the Tools PMC look to expansion and staffing from more of its
      contained projects;
 2)  That the Technology PMC take steps to help mature Technology
      contained projects to move out from under the Technology umbrella.


_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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