Even if you’re a project that does
get removed, you can still release on the same day. Other than getting your
bits mentioned in an over crowded update site, it’s not overly obvious
what the benefits of being in the simultaneous release trains are at the moment.
I know the only thing the CDT community cares about is having the same release
date. So I’m not sure we’d want to pull that card yet. The whole
house could come down.
And in my mind that’s the real
problem with the RC. Their influence in the day to day operations of Eclipse
projects isn’t very strong. Given that committers are the only ones that
have power on the projects, the RC needs to do a better job of influencing
them, or just forget about it.
BTW, I won’t be at the planning
[mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007
[eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning Council
I've added the following item to the discussion section
of our Agenda for next week.
am not saying I don't trust "the EMO" to make the right decision :)
if we are a simultaneous release "by and for the people", to borrow a
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
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).
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
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