Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
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".



   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.


      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