RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council

["Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Process is the wrong word (sorry, my emotions are boiling over with this
thing). I really mean plan. I have no idea what E4 is, which is
disappointing to begin with. If it's much different than the current
platform, that will probably accellerate interest in members adding
resources to the current platform. We need to make sure those that want
to, especially those that have attempted to in the past, can contribute
to it.

Doug S.

-----Original Message-----
From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:25 PM
To: 'eclipse.org-architecture-council'; 'eclipse.org-planning-council'
Subject: [eclipse.org-planning-council] RE:
[eclipse.org-architecture-council]RE: Eclipse Project
AnnouncementandProject Review Schedule


> You're right, the planning council list may not be the best place, 
> certainly all the councils and the board itself need to be interested 
> in this.

I can assure you that the board is fully informed of the E4 plans, as a
briefing was given by the team at the December meeting.

> If we're going to have two platforms, we'd better have the processes 
> in place to ensure they get the resourcing necessary to keep them both

> alive.

I am curious. (Really, honestly I am.) What would such a process look
like?
Every project at Eclipse is responsible for figuring out its own
resourcing.
Or they fail. Are you suggesting that should change?

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list, you
must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.