I agree with Gunnar. I think
"influence software architectures used by Projects" is good.
Influence doesn't imply control, or dictating the direction. It can take
many forms. Even the simple act of having a body (AC) and forum (AC calls,
AC bugzilla) for architectural discussions has the effect of influencing
the direction of project architecture. Being "responsible for influencing
the ecosystem" is much too vague to have any meaning, in my opinion.
Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/11/2011 10:10 AM
Please respond to
Bylaws Change on AC (was: 10-Mar AC meeting notes)
Am 11.03.2011 15:55, schrieb Oberhuber, Martin:
> As I said I’m not a good wordsmith nor native English speaker so
> having a hard time coming up with something good. My only idea at
> time is removing the “Projects” and replacing architecture with
I think "ecosystem" is way to broad. If we can't even manage
influence projects how should we influence a whole ecosystem?
FWIW, I don't think that "influence software architectures used by
Projects" is such a bad term. Even if it's pull instead of push and
indirectly by processes and tools instead directly, I think it's still