Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [] A suggested topic for Planning Council Discussion


He's refer to the Requirements Council's identity/usefulness crisis.  It's
pretty clear that the council's influence is rather weak, and the question
begging to be asked is how that council can actually require anything
substantial of an all-volunteer committer base.

Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 313)

             David M Williams                                          
   >                                                 To
             Sent by:                  ""  
             es@xxxxxxxxxxx                                             cc
             10/30/2007 09:58          RE: []
             AM                        A suggested topic for Planning  
                                       Council Discussion              
             Please respond to                                         

Also good points for discussion  ... but what do you mean by "RC"? The P
lanning Council?

 Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>                                     
 Sent by:                                                               To        ""
 ces@xxxxxxxxxxx                          <
 10/30/2007 09:46 AM                                                   
         Please respond to                [] 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,

[] On Behalf Of
David M Williams
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:29 AM
Subject: [] 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
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

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, _______________________________________________ mailing list
_______________________________________________ mailing list

Back to the top