|Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Three points about this discussion|
Hi Bjorn, Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
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".
1. 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.
I agree with you...but I haven't seen any of the recent criticism of the current/stricter rules as saying or implying that Eclipse should be like source forge. Rather I think most (me anyway :) have been saying that the stricter rules are getting higher/too high...not just staying the same.
1. 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.
If that were to happen, it seems to me like a very high price for the committers and communities to pay in order to give the Board data.
1. 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.
Although I agree with you that formally it's a choice, it's not practically a choice if you are interested in having your project succeed (in terms of community adoption/usage, etc).
Back to the top