Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo Must-do's

There sure has been a lot of good discussion this morning! 

At least no one is complaining (yet) about signing their jars. :) 

When I see phrases like "unfunded mandates" though, it make me
think something is breaking down in communication. Perhaps it is 
the very phrase "must do". Maybe the phrases such as "Aspects of 
all Galileo projects" and "Aspects of most Galileo projects" would 
capture the meaning without sounding so bossy? And, I assure you, 
no one on the planning council wants to be bossy! (well, there might
be one or two of us :) But our real intent is to better codify 
"what makes a good Eclipse project and simultaneous release" 
and, yes, to see the bar raised slightly every year. 

So, we came up with the list ... we've published openly it for comments 
and it's good to know no one is bashful about giving that feedback!

I would encourage everyone to be more specific, though. Maybe the 
are in there and others have captured them, but there's a bit of a 
tone of "we don't want anyone telling us what to do". Which reminds me, 
I saw one of those old "don't tread on me" flags the other day ... 
memory is interesting, isn't it? ... I used to love those when I was a 

Anyway, I'd encourage you, especially those of you who feel you are not
well-represented on the Board or the planning council to simply state the 
specifics here (or, open a bugzilla for discussion). Such as, "we don't 
think the 
news and noteworthy is meaningful for our project and do not want [or can 
not] do 
one for Galileo, but we would still like to be on the Galileo train, can 
item be re-worded or re-categorized?" or similar, for what ever items
you think are not good candidates for criteria. 

I can't wait for the tide to turn and start hearing what others think 
_should_ be 
put on the list. If you think the current proposed list 
sounds "strict" or sounds like "a lot of [new] work", you should have 
the ones we rejected! (on your behalf :)

Most of all, I do think these are good discussions, a normal part of the 
cycle, but please be specific on your concerns ... or compliments. :) 


Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
11/14/2008 11:36 AM
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo Must-do's

Well said Thomas (in several emails).

I think you speak for a fair number of committers and project leads (at 
least)...particularly of the smaller projects and smaller companies as 
eloquently pointed out by Martin.

If these 'unfunded mandates' are affecting the smaller companies as much 
as it seems to be doing, consider the plight of [gasp] the projects not 
run (or supported) by any one company...and probably not as 
well-represented on the Board or the planning council.

I would urge the committer representatives to bring this issue up at the 
Board level, if/when appropriate.


Thomas Hallgren 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":

>>     and further comments should go on
>>     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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

Back to the top