|Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for PlanningCouncil Discussion|
Like any such group, the planning council is only representative of the committers, but it does not completely reflect the committers. In fact, I believe it is impossible to completely reflect all committers - I am reminded of being in the middle of an argument about APIs between Jim des Riviers and Arthur Ryman - both committers and with very different opinions on the topic. Thus I claim it be impossible to even create an "average" committer profile, much less a completely representative one.
Hence the Eclipse Bylaws define two parallel structures of representation for committers: PMCs --> Councils and Board reps. I'm not sure what other mechanism you would suggest that would not suffer from the same issue of not being able to represent all committers - even a vote of the committers themselves would suffer from representing only a majority of the committers.
(It may seem that this is off-topic, the topic being whether Ganymede should require participating projects to be more polished and integrated, but if the question is whether the Planning Council is representative enough to define those rules, then this is very on-topic.)
Scott Lewis wrote:
As an example, the planning council, with all due respect, doesn't very completely reflect the committer community.
[end of message]