[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning Council Discussion
|
Also good points for discussion ...
but what do you mean by "RC"? The Planning Council?
Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/30/2007 09:46 AM
Please respond to
"eclipse.org-planning-council" <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A
suggested topic for Planning Council
Discussion |
|
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
council meeting.
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software
Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of David M Williams
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:29 AM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: [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, _______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council