[
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
|
Exactly. The same is true with any criteria we put on Ganymede. As we always
say, code talks. Unless we get or influence volunteers to explicitly work on
meeting requirements from any council, they won't get addressed.
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed
> Merks
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:10 AM
> To: eclipse.org-planning-council
> Cc: eclipse.org-planning-council; eclipse.org-planning-council-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning
> Council Discussion
>
> David,
>
> 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
> <david_williams@u
> s.ibm.com> To
> Sent by: "eclipse.org-planning-council"
> eclipse.org-plann <eclipse.org-planning-council@eclip
> ing-council-bounc se.org>
> es@xxxxxxxxxxx cc
>
> Subject
> 10/30/2007 09:58 RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council]
> AM A suggested topic for Planning
> Council Discussion
>
> Please respond to
> "eclipse.org-plan
> ning-council"
> <eclipse.org-plan
> ning-council@ecli
> pse.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Also good points for discussion ... but what do you mean by "RC"? The P
> lanning Council?
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>
>
> Sent by: To
> eclipse.org-planning-council-boun "eclipse.org-planning-council"
> ces@xxxxxxxxxxx <eclipse.org-planning-council@ec
> lipse.org>
> cc
> 10/30/2007 09:46 AM
> Subject
> RE:
> Please respond to [eclipse.org-planning-council] A
> "eclipse.org-planning-council" suggested topic for Planning
> <eclipse.org-planning-council@ec Council Discussion
> lipse.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:
> Enforcement:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
