> but since LTS has the a goal of having a set of set points in time (the > existing > releases) that is maintained into the future, doesn't it make sense to have > LTS > be the primary stakeholder for the entire simultaneous release concept (maybe > they are?)
The Planning Council is currently responsible for defining and running the simultaneous release process. LTS currently relies upon the existence of a simultaneous release as its starting point. The LTS working group would be a very poor replacement for the Planning Council in running the simultaneous release. For example, one of the major features of the Planning Council is that it has representation on it from each of the PMCs. The LTS working group steering committee does not. _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
