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
9:59 AM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: 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
