[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
[eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning Council Discussion
|
I've added the following item to the
discussion section of our Agenda for next week.
I am not saying I don't trust "the
EMO" to make the right decision :)
but if we are a simultaneous release
"by and for the people", to borrow a phrase,
I wonder if we, the Planning Council,
should police ourselves:
A line in Ganymede
plan says "Unlike the somewhat lax enforcement of previous years,
the EMO will remove projects that do not meet the required constraints."
Since such issues often involve a cost-benefit analysis
or trade off, I suggest we build-in a Planning Council mechanism that allows
for reasonable exceptions. Besides allowing for those reasonable exceptions,
this might help avoid being too cautious on saying what is "required".
For example, my suggested wording would be, "If projects do not meet
the required constraints, they will be removed from the Ganymede release
unless
1. The
project applies for an exception that is reviewed and approved by majority
vote of the Planning Council (that is, majority vote with no substantial
objections).
2. The
project has a plan for rectifying the noncompliant item by the next coordinated
yearly release. Exceptions can not be granted two years in a row -- either
compliance will be achieved, or the rule changed.
Thought I'd post this now, so some thought/discussion
could take place beforehand. Maybe there is some reason it _has_ to be
the EMO for some reason that I am not aware of?
Thanks,