[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo Must-do's
|
Title: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo Must-do's
Hi Richard,
I
fully agree with what you say. I second the idea that participating
in the
train may cost something, because you also gain from it. I agree that we need rules in
order to keep consistent as we grow.
But I do see a potential problem here:
The PC is comprised of a single representative of each PMC. These
representatives are typically from the larger companies, who
can
afford sponsoring Eclipse to a larger extent (by providing
PMC personnel, expensing for travel to Face-to-face-meetings
etc).
These larger companies are also the ones who are interested in
globalization, and as a matter of fact many of the must-dos
have
to do with globalization: String externalization, Babel, ICU4J
just to
name few.
Now by means of the Train, smaller projects (sponsored by smaller
companies)
get forced to invest in globalization although they would
normally not need that because they might be interested in
English-only versions of their products based on Eclipse. It almost seems
that the larger companies (represented on the PMC's and the PC)
take the
Train as a vehicle to have smaller projects do work that
only
they benefit from.
I'm in favor of Rules that can be argued to improve the Eclipse
Architecture and consistency of the projects. I like Capabilities, UI
Guidelines, Branding, Build, Execution Environment, OSGi, New&Noteworthy,
Ramp-down-plan, Orbit. I can also understand
Accessibility as a social responsibility and quality signal of
Eclipse. But for rules that cannot be argued like that, I think that those who need or gain from a rule (the large
ones) should also pay for it
(by contributing to the smaller projects).
Again,
I'd like to encourage everyone interested to participate in my
poll:
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project
Lead, DSDP PMC Member
Each year, we raise the bar a little on release train
participation. As I recall, the main bar-raising items are capability
definitions and New & Noteworthy pages. These didn’t seem too
drastic by members of the PC that agreed to them, but maybe we were wrong (I
certainly hope not).
And to be clear, nobody is forcing anyone to do
anything. Participation on the Release Train is voluntary, but comes at
the cost of agreeing to release at a higher bar than what is normally required
for releasing as a non-train project. There’s not a whip involved here,
but a carrot. If you’d like to be on the train, there is a cost, that’s
all.
- Rich
On 11/14/08 5:01 AM, "Thomas Hallgren" <thomas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I miss the good old days when Open Source
communities were based on the contributions that they got, where the
contributors were heroes, and the quality of the resulting product were the
product of their goodwill and skill. I find that participating in the
Eclipse release train nowadays involves efforts that are somewhat
overwhelming and that I, instead of adding valid functionality to the areas
where I contribute, am forced to implement requirements that brings much
less benefit to the intended user base.
I think that when a central
management stipulates this many requirements for individual projects,
there's a high risk that all the fun is taken out of it. As a contributor,
and even as a project manager, I loose control. I no longer decide what's
important in my own domain. I no longer prioritize what to do with the time
I spend on the projects. Someone else does. A lot of the motivation is
thereby lost, replaced with a whip that forces me to comply with a strict
set of rules. Was that the intention? I don't think so.
Don't get me
wrong, I can see that there are benefits in having a common set of
requirements. I just think it's a tad too much
now.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
Schaefer, Doug wrote:
It'll be
interesting to see what happens when we get to the Release Review and find
few of us actually did all the must dos. Unfortunately, the must do's
didn't come with additional contributions and I can't seem to pull any out
of my, uh, never mind. I see Doom ahead unless a Christmas miracle
happens.
Doug.
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Anthony Hunter
Sent: Thursday,
November 13, 2008 10:20 PM
To: Cross project
issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo
Must-do's
Hi Team,
with respect to the questioning of the capabilities as a "must
do":
http://ahuntereclipse.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-just-dont-have-any-capabilities.html
and
further comments should go on https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=252807
Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software
Development Manager: Eclipse Open Source Components
IBM Rational
Software: Aurora / GEF / GMF / Modeling Tools
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev
mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev
mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
