Re: [science-iwg] [science-pmc] Retiring the Science Working Group

[Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Torkild,

I've been waiting for a long time now for you to nominate me to the SC since we updated the charter and committer-members can take on SC roles, but they can only be nominated by current SC members. I probably should have synced up with you about this. Or did we do this and I just forgot about it?

But, I don't think it matters now and it is clearly an indicator of how low our activity has been. I believe that you are correct to make a motion that we should retire the working group. Please allow me to follow suit with Philip and second that motion. We can sync up with EF to figure out the next steps.

I am also concerned that the PMC and TLP are defunct. After taking over as PMC chair, I emailed the list several times to ask for project leads to join a meeting and I think Philip was the only person to respond. I believe that we should ask the EMO for guidance on this and make moves to adjust membership and retire projects as needed.

If anyone wants to throw tomatoes at me, please do: They are one of my favorite fruits!

Jay

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 3:10 PM Philip Wenig <philip.wenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Torkild,

that's a point. We have had good meetings and a lot of fun over the
years. But I totally agree with you, that the setup of the Science WG
was probably too optimistic and the focus was too diverse. Me for myself
will keep on improving:

* SWTChart
* ChemClipse

I would be happy to see if also

* TexClipse

survives and if other projects like

* DAWNSci
* StatET

will be developed further on.
You have my support for your request to retire the Science WG.


Best,
Philip

On 28.10.22 20:53, Torkild U. Resheim wrote:
> Ahoy everyone,
>
> I have finally come to the conclusion that the Eclipse Science Working Group should be retired. It is not functional; with only me in the board doing very little, and apparently no one wanting to step up. Additionally I believe the Working Group concept is too heavyweight for the workload that we have been able to support.
>
> However, projects are active, and of course we would like to keep it that way. I believe they would not suffer if we shut down the Working Group. Keeping only the Top Level Project and it’s PMC going would be quite sufficient for what we have been trying to achieve. And if need be, we could always establish a new lighter Interest Group[1].
>
> I’m looking forward to your comments and input. If there is not support for an establishing a full board within the next two months, I will ask the Foundation to retire the Science Working Group.
>
> Best regards,
> Torkild
>
> [1] https://www.eclipse.org/org/collaborations/interest-groups/process.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> science-pmc mailing list
> science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OpenChrom - the open source alternative for chromatography / mass spectrometry
Dr. Philip Wenig » Founder » philip.wenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx » http://www.openchrom.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________
science-pmc mailing list
science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc

--

Jay Jay Billings, Ph.D.