On 7/5/13 6:46 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 17:23 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
In brief summary the TSC has been doing two main things, acting as a
task force and also being able to make a decision when needed. The
latter has not happened much at all, the main work was as a task force
on various issues, firstly engaging with the Yocto Project and figuring
that out, more recently dealing with infrastructure issues and generally
ensuring the health of OE.
It's certainly true that most of the current TSC members have been doing
a fine job on the "task force" front and I think we'd all be glad to see
them continue with that. What's rather less obvious to me is whether
they actually need to be an elected body in order to do so; any group of
individuals who wish to form a task force are obviously free and welcome
to do so at any time.
As you note, the requirement for the TSC to actually make decisions has
been minimal/nonexistent of late and, again, it's not totally obvious
that having an elected body of experts on perpetual standby just in case
a decision might be needed is entirely necessary.
In the many-layered world that we now inhabit, it seems reasonable to
let the individual layer maintainers (in consultation with their peers
when necessary) make the decisions that they think best for their own
trees. Recent experience seems to suggest that, practically speaking,
this is already what's happening and when it comes to a contest of wills
the TSC have not shown any interest in overruling layer maintainers who
disagree with their stated position.
Plus, of course, we already have two bodies who are empowered by the OE
e.V. statutes to make decisions, namely the board and the GA. Both of
these have wide discretion to do what they think best, and of course
they can convene a panel of expert advisers if they feel that any
particular issue needs specialist knowledge that they don't have.
So, all in all, I feel that we've come to the point where the TSC (as an
organisation) is no longer providing us with any particular benefits and
could be disbanded without causing any real hardship. This would avoid
the administrative overhead of running elections for each of its seats,
which have recently been uncontested in any case, and would also avoid a
certain amount of potential ambiguity over where the TSC's jurisdiction
ends and the board's starts.
I believe that Phil Blundell raises a valid question about the continuing
need for the TSC. However, it seems to me that the need for a group to
arbitrate on technical matters is valuable enough, by itself, to keep
the TSC.
This applies even if that function is utilized infrequently.
In considering the future of the TSC, I offer the opinion that in the
future,
tactical concerns shouldn't be the primary business for the TSC. Rather, I'd
like to see the TSC become more strategically focused. In particular,
I'd like
to have the TSC produce a vision for OE in the 2-3 year time frame. As
another
OE board member, I support Phil Balister's offer to have the
non-technical matters
fall to the board to handle, with the caveat that the TSC becomes more
focused on
the long term evolution and improvement of OE as a whole
Regards,
Sean
Sean Hudson | Embedded Linux Architect
Mentor Embedded™
Nucleus® | Linux® | Android™ | Services | UI | Multi-OS
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
