Hi Bjorn,
Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
Scott,
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.
Scott
|
