| Status Update [message #9304] |
Thu, 16 October 2003 23:15  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Since you kindly elected to allow me to keep my lungs, I think it's only
fair to reward you with some information. I had a very productive
meeting yesterday with an eclipse board members and I can assure you
that they are actively engaged in rebooting this project. I met some
other like-minded vendors and they are eager to get started. I expect
the organizational issues to be resolved in a week or two. If all goes
as planned, watch out for the creation of some subprojects soon, and
some nifty code to play with.
-- Arthur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Status Update [message #9499 is a reply to message #9475] |
Thu, 23 October 2003 23:14  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
shmuel siegel wrote:
> "Jamie Bisotti" wrote
>
>>Does it bother anybody else that this project has been held up due to
>>issues with "other vendors"? I thought this was an open source project?
>> That being the case, it would seem only willing and able programmers
>>would be required; regardless of if they worked for a "vendor" or not.
>>I'm rather new here; is this the way the general Eclipse "open source"
>>project runs?
>>
>>Jamie
>>
>
>
> This is coming from an observer with no official relation to Eclipse or IBM
> except that I have been using Eclipse since its 1.0 release.
> I would assume that the other vendor requirement is two-fold.
> 1) Eclipse is not a "do what you want", open source, repository. That is
> what sourceforge does well. Instead it is an organization that promotes the
> development of tools that will enhance the Eclipse platform itself. To this
> degree, there needs to be dedicated project management responsible to the
> Eclipse consortium directors. A vendor, someone with a vesting interest in
> seeing the project completed makes a good candidate as the manager.
> 2) IBM wants to divorce itself from the image of controlling Eclipse and
> would therefore prefer an "outside vendor".
>
> There real question then is, why do we have a newsgroup which looks like it
> should be a project but no project definition and no management group behind
> it? In essence, IBM is looking for the same thing that the correspondents in
> this group are looking for. Someone needs to take the ball and run with it.
> You are free to convince the Eclipse consortium that you are that person.
>
>
Shmuel,
Very well put. What we are talking about here is the "official"
leadership of the project. We want to get off on the right foot so we're
making a concerted effort to engage other vendors to get in on the
ground floor and direct the project in a way that treats everyone
equally. Of course, once the project gets rolling, anyone can
contribute. You don't have to work for any vendor.
FYI, our next meeting is Monday, Oct 27. I'll keep you posted on the
outcome.
-- Arthur
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Status Update [message #9889 is a reply to message #9867] |
Mon, 03 November 2003 12:58 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Arthur Ryman wrote:
> I met with some representatives from the eclipse PRC on October 27 and
> was told that that was going to be a PRC meeting on October 31 where a
> descision would be made to officially relaunch this project. I was also
> told that some other potential contributors were being contacted during
> the week. I previously met another potential contributor who was
> planning to become an associate member of eclipse.
So the reason there hasn't been a public relaunch is because IBM is
waiting to get additional sponsors on board. What eludes me is why
additional sponsors should be responsible for the delay. I suppose if a
major sponsor was going to donate some code upon which the project would
be based that'd be a fair reason (and I hope this may be the case ?..)
but given the open source nature of Eclipse, any sponsors could exert
their influence by joining/participating in the project at any point.
> You may notice that I'm not naming names since I don't feel it's my
> place to do so. I feel that people should speak for themselves. I
> apologize for the vagueness.
That's understandable given that there has not been any "official"
announcement.
> In any case, the good news is that there is definitely activity afoot,
> albeit behind the scenes. We at IBM are eagerly awaiting the relaunch
> since we are ready to contribute many plugins.
Do you think it might be possible to give an unofficial guesstimate of
when things might become more open ? I'm eagerly looking forward to the
launch of the webtools project.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04565 seconds
Home