[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [soa-iwg] ECF and SOA initiative
|
Hi Mike,
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
In any event, this obviously isn't the SOA working group specific (i.e.
the membership requirements are for all working groups as per the
process doc), so it's a larger discussion (that unfortunately I and
other committers probably won't be privy to...BTW).
Scott, the latter parenthetical statement is neither true, nor it is
representative of how governance works at Eclipse. These membership
requirements for the steering committees for industry working groups were
discussed and approved by the Board in 2008, including the Committer
Representatives. If you have any misgivings about the decision I would
recommend that you address them to your representatives on the Board.
I have done this in the past and will continue to do so. But I also
know that the committer representatives are not always successful in
getting the Board to do certain things in representing the committers
(as per any representatives on a Board that aren't the only interests).
Communicating desires to the committers to represent the interests of
all the committers is something I have done...as much or more than any
other committer at Eclipse I would assert...and will continue to do so.
No need to remind me of that.
I would also point out that being on or off of the steering committee in no
way prevents anyone from participating and providing "...good
input/work/ideas/code". Committer members may certainly _participate_ in
industry working groups. Craig Setera's participation[1] in Pulsar is a
great example of such.
I understand. As you and I both know, however, participation is not the
same thing (which gets to the point below about what steering committee
does).
It's also important to note that IWG's do not "code". All coding still
happens in projects following the normal development, governance and IP
processes.
Fine...but they plan, do they not? Do they create requirements for the
interested/appropriate projects? (like, say, ECF wrt SOA). As I
haven't been on a undustry working group steering committee so I frankly
do not know what they do, but the process document would indicate that
they do plan, create requirements, identify market needs, etc.
And this does seem to have diverged from the SOA working group in
particular, so I ask that any further discussion about IWG policy in
general be moved elsewhere, because I do not wish to have the foundation
policy WRT working groups conflated with my project lead interest in
ECF/SOA collaboration.
Scott
