| Re: What else is out there? [message #18071] |
Mon, 28 March 2005 15:04  |
 Mike Milinkovich
Messages: 260
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I have cross-linked this to eclipse.foundation and propose that any
follow-on conversation in this branch of the thread happen there.
>> Is there some requirement for the Eclipse Foundation to single-handedly
>> re-invent every wheel,
>
> Great question. The answer is absolutely NO!
This thread has me just a little bemused.
First, let me agree that the Eclipse Foundation is not interested in, or
required to, re-invent every wheel.
But the original assertion could be read to imply that the Eclipse
Foundation is perhaps running a command-and-control economy. We're not :-)
New projects usually happen in a bottom-up fashion.
In the Technology PMC in particular, we try to allow ideas to be explored
and researched with relatively little oversight. In many cases (not all) the
goal is that once a project has been matured there, it will migrate to
another PMC. Recent examples include WSVT (now part of WST in WenTools) and
XSD (now part of EMF in Tools).
I have not looked at JDIC at all, and Desk only superficially. But in
general there could be many reasons to have projects which appear to overlap
initiatives at the JCP or elsewhere. Open source licensing comes to mind as
one example. Open source rules for development could be a second. Or just
someone's stubborn interest in building their own darn project as a third.
Especially in the latter case, it is useful to remember some of the criteria
for success for an Eclipse project. E.g. the ability to create a community
interested in and contributing to the project, and the demonstrated ability
to ship software that works. Not every project proposal we get in the
Technology PMC will ultimately succeed. But I am not very interested in
seeing the Foundation attempt to guess ahead of time which ones will work
and which ones won't.
The flip side is that we also don't want to become a SourceForge, which
support a truly huge range of projects with no common theme. (That is not in
any way meant as a slight on SourceForge. Eclipse is just different.) That's
why we have a Development Process (see
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse%20Development%2 0Process%202003_11_09%20FINAL.pdf),
and that's why projects have to be consistent with the Purposes (see the
Bylaws) and the Roadmap (see
http://www.eclipse.org/org/councils/roadmap.html)
Mike Milinkovich
Executive Director
Eclipse Foundation
|
|
|
| Re: What else is out there? [message #18729 is a reply to message #18071] |
Tue, 05 April 2005 18:58  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: ian.no.spam.please
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> I have cross-linked this to eclipse.foundation and propose that any
> follow-on conversation in this branch of the thread happen there.
>
>
>>>Is there some requirement for the Eclipse Foundation to single-handedly
>>>re-invent every wheel,
>>
>>Great question. The answer is absolutely NO!
>
> This thread has me just a little bemused.
>
> First, let me agree that the Eclipse Foundation is not interested in, or
> required to, re-invent every wheel.
Glad to hear it confirmed by you.
> But the original assertion could be read to imply that the Eclipse
> Foundation is perhaps running a command-and-control economy. We're not :-)
> New projects usually happen in a bottom-up fashion.
The original post was meant to open discussion, not to criticise you
guys, whom I know and who work hard for the benefit of the "EC" (and I
don't mean the European one).
> In the Technology PMC in particular, we try to allow ideas to be explored
> and researched with relatively little oversight. In many cases (not all) the
> goal is that once a project has been matured there, it will migrate to
> another PMC. Recent examples include WSVT (now part of WST in WenTools) and
> XSD (now part of EMF in Tools).
>
> I have not looked at JDIC at all, and Desk only superficially. But in
> general there could be many reasons to have projects which appear to overlap
> initiatives at the JCP or elsewhere. Open source licensing comes to mind as
> one example. Open source rules for development could be a second. Or just
> someone's stubborn interest in building their own darn project as a third.
Unlike in-house Sun stuff, the current version of JDIC is released under
the LGPL.
I also wanted to mention that parts of JDIC have at least some chance of
being incorporated into the J2SE (see the articles linked to
from http://jdic.dev.java.net/), though it's not yet clear exactly which
parts nor how likely.
> Especially in the latter case, it is useful to remember some of the criteria
> for success for an Eclipse project. E.g. the ability to create a community
> interested in and contributing to the project, and the demonstrated ability
> to ship software that works. Not every project proposal we get in the
> Technology PMC will ultimately succeed. But I am not very interested in
> seeing the Foundation attempt to guess ahead of time which ones will work
> and which ones won't.
I'm with you.
>
> The flip side is that we also don't want to become a SourceForge, which
> support a truly huge range of projects with no common theme. (That is not in
> any way meant as a slight on SourceForge. Eclipse is just different.) That's
> why we have a Development Process (see
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse%20Development%2 0Process%202003_11_09%20FINAL.pdf),
> and that's why projects have to be consistent with the Purposes (see the
> Bylaws) and the Roadmap (see
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/councils/roadmap.html)
SF let you use any process, or none. And have a lot more dead projects
as a result :-)
Cheers
Ian
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04433 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
