Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] JFace Generics

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Schaefer" <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Cross project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:42:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] JFace Generics
> John, you are right by the letter of the law. But I think the point is, if
> the contributors want the platform to be successful, they have to be
> sensitive to the needs of adopters. They're who make a platform successful.
> If they aren't then who are they building the platform for? (And as much as
> we don't like to talk about it, I really hate the real answer to that
> question).

There is nothing to hate in the answer - they(we) code it for their(our) clients (client != adopter). (My POV)
And one does it hoping to share the maintenance burden with other adopters. This is how things work. This is not something that needs to be hidden.
A platform is build by various adopters so they can base their products on it. It's not like contributors don't care for adopters needs but they do care about their own needs first. I've been hit by that many times but there is only one way to change it - step in and do the things you need, if they are too big start with other things till you get merit in the project to the state where you can have bigger influence. That's FOSS 101.

> For Eclipse to be a successful platform going forward that has to change. Or,
> yeah, we could just fork it. A lot of us who build products on it already
> have. But no one is suggesting that's the right thing to do in the long run.
> Or are we?

What John suggested to me is for people to step in "then they need to get involved to influence the direction" that's the first and best option. As another one that has product on top of it the reason to fork various parts in various times was nothing else but these parts being set in stone, patches not reviewed for months and etc. Aka projects being too closed not being too open.


> Doug.
> From: John Arthorne < John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx >
> Reply-To: Cross project issues < cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx >
> Date: Friday, 30 August, 2013 11:05 AM
> To: Cross project issues < cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx >
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] JFace Generics
> Eike Stepper < stepper@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote on 08/30/2013 05:59:14 AM:
> > >The project is it's contributors not it's API.
> > 
> > That sounds a little as if Eclipse projects are only playgrounds for
> > "the cool kids". I think a project is successful if
> > what it produces (including the APIs) is successful, i.e. widely
> > adopted. The adopters have to be pleased, not the contributors.
> You're definitely wrong about this part. Committers and contributors will
> always have the final say. An adopter that is not contributing has
> *absolutely* no say in the direction of the project. This is not my opinion
> - this is clearly defined in the Eclipse charter, by-laws, and dev process,
> and is the same for most other open source projects. The historic platform
> contributors (e.g., IBM), placed extremely high value on stability and
> compatibility. If those committers are gone and a new set of committers
> arrives that values innovation and change over stability and compatibility,
> then that's the direction the project will take. If adopters don't like that
> direction, then they need to get involved to influence the direction, fork
> the project, etc. Even as a PMC member I have no right to value the needs of
> adopters over contributors - quite the opposite I have a clearly defined
> obligation to enable the project's contributors to make progress in the
> direction they want to take.
> John
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top