Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[cross-project-issues-dev] Three points about this discussion

Four points, only slightly ordered:
  1. The "us versus them" mentality - I honestly do not understand this. The Planning Council is a representative body, not a dictatorial body. I understand that there is a little bit of us versus them vis a vis the Board and some of the Board's imposed requirements, but the Planning Council is composed of PMC members and the PMCs are composed of Project Leads. It's a representative system. Even more so now that Rich Gronback is the chair: he's not even a Foundation employee.

    So, "us versus them"? - that's ridiculous. We (including you)(through our representatives) are creating our own rules for ourselves. There is no "them".

  2. Eclipse is not a "Forge". There are rules to follow - the most obvious example is the IP policy, but there is also the official Development Process with reviews, etc. Eclipse is not going to continue to succeed if it is just a forge-like dump of uncoordinated and random projects doing their own thing. Yes, I admit that there is a cost to following the rules - of course there is. Obviously you and I and our employers think that the benefit of being part of Eclipse (and following the rules) is higher than the cost. If the cost is too high, projects will leave and go somewhere else - under the EPL, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. I assume that if projects vote with their feet and leave en mass, then the Board would see that as evidence that the cost of the rules is too high.

    So we've got rules and processes and must-dos - that's just what it costs to be part of Eclipse. We're not going to be a free-for-all, do-anything-you-want organization - it's just not going to happen. Participation in the annual release train is the same thing: it's voluntary (your project can join or not join), it has some rules (e.g., localization via Babel), and it has some benefits (e.g., moving to the front of the IP team's work queue). It's entirely your choice as to whether the benefits are greater than the costs.

  3. The "the Galileo community is not my community" argument - if true, then you are welcome to not participate in Galileo and then you won't have to follow any of the must-do rules that the Galileo Planning Council has set. On the other hand, if you want to participate in Galileo, then the Planning Council is where we decide Galileo's intended user based and thus their needs and desires - effectively, the Planning Council is the product manager of Galileo... So on to point 4:

  4. Discussion is good. As Rich pointed out, the Galileo rules are not set in stone yet - the Planning Council (representing you) meets again in December to finalize the details. Talk to your PMC about your concerns and your PMC rep will bring up the issues at the Planning Council.
- Bjorn

Back to the top