Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] A suggested topic for PlanningCouncil Discussion

Hi Bjorn,

Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
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.)

To me, it is the latter question.

I fully appreciate that representing a diverse body (committers, contributors, customers, members, etc) is a very difficult thing.  I'm certainly *not* intending to slight the Planning Council or Board by my previous comments.

I would only say that it is important to try to represent as many views as possible on something so materially important to projects and consumers of Eclipse...i.e. the rules/policies for inclusion for code distribution. 


Back to the top