Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Bylaws Change on AC (was: 10-Mar AC meeting notes)

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:

03/11/2011 10:10 AM

Please respond to
""        <>

Re: [] 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 I’m
> having a hard time coming up with something good. My only idea at this
> time is removing the “Projects” and replacing architecture with ecosystem:

I think "ecosystem" is way to broad. If we can't even manage to
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
our influence.


Gunnar Wagenknecht
_______________________________________________ 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