|[science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting|
The draft Science charter (Google doc) is all marked up at the moment, but I'll go in and clean that up and capture comments & discussion in the wiki.
In today's meeting there were a few key changes we propose making to the draft charter that I wanted to share here on the mailing list.
1) Widening the scope
The charter draft was somewhat focused on RCP applications. The group agreed we should widen it.
The team recognized there will almost certainly be different areas of specialization or sub-groups within the group. For what it's worth, we'll start with the Eclipse Technology top level project (TLP) for convenience, but Science may have multiple TLP's in the future.
2) Add Guest members
The team agreed with the proposal to add a guest member level. Guest are invited by the Steering Committee for 1 year terms and might be Eclipse Foundation Associate members in the case of Academic Institutions & Government agencies as per the Eclipse Working Group process.
Consensus was not reached as to whether Guest members should have voting rights or not. A compromise was suggested to leave it to the Steering Committee to bestow voting rights or not when adding guests. I'm going to use lazy consensus here & suggest we do that... if you are NOT OK with this idea, please speak up ASAP.
3) The "right" resource level
There were many options to distinguish Steering Committee members from Participant members. The current proposal to do so based on resources contributed seemed to hold up to scrutiny, however consensus on the exact resource level could not be reached yet.
Some felt 2 people was too much. Some felt 2 might be doable depending on how you count effort. I'd like to bring the discussion here to the list to get input from the wider group & give people more time to think about it and weigh in. What is the right level & counting mechanism? This doesn't have to be heavyweight.
Back to the top