|RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse 4.0 (was EclipseProjectAnnouncement and Project Review Schedule)|
Hi Mike, Care to out this on planet eclipse? I think the community at large will want to read it. Doug G > -----Original Message----- > From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of Mike Wilson > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:36 PM > To: eclipse.org-architecture-council > Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse 4.0 (was > EclipseProjectAnnouncement and Project Review Schedule) > > Doug, > I *know* that we're all trying to do the right thing here. > Really. I > also know that we *all* believe that the level of communication and > community participation that we are striving for in this is orders of > magnitude more than what you have seen from the platform team in the > past. > > So, like everyone who is learning a new way to work, what we > absolutely need from the community is positive re-inforcement when we > get > things right, and *gentle* <g> chastisement when we mess up. Your > message > below is perfect, in fact, since it simply points out that the way e4 > has > been talked about so far has confused things more than it has helped. > I'll > make another attempt at clearing that up in a sec (and I'm sure you'll > tell > me if I fail), but I want to make one other point first. > > I care deeply about Eclipse. I have been fighting for its success > since day zero. When I look at Eclipse.org today, I am truly humbled by > the > sheer magnitude of the successes we (all) have built, and I really do > GET > IT that it is the community that has generated that success. So I'm > going > to be completely open here: I am _royally_pissed_ that something so > critical to all our successes (i.e. the Eclipse SDK) is being built by > a > very small team, most of whom come from one company. There are exactly > two > things that I believe are threatening the continued success of Eclipse > right now: > > - lack of a diverse, growing committer community on the SDK > > - a codebase that is so constrained by history that it can't > respond > to a rapidly changing computing environment > > Addressing those two things is *exactly* why the e4 effort was started. > No > hidden agendas. No extra direction from IBM to solve some new business > problem. Nothing else. So what it all comes down to is this: If someone > sees us doing something that doesn't look like it matches one of those > goals, absolutely speak up! But, for God's sake, give us the benefit of > a > doubt. We will make mistakes, but they will be honest ones. For my > part, I > personally commit to making e4 be the kind of community driven project > we > all want. > > Anyway, I've ranted enough -- let me get back to your post... > > The only code that exists that is related to e4, is a couple of > cool(ish) demos (neither of which is called "e4") that we built to help > us > figure out whether some ideas we had about new directions were valuable > or > not -- As Steve says, "We think with our fingers". I'd been planning to > show that code at EclipseCON, because I also believe that demos speak > louder than powerpoint, but we really only had them in publishable > shape in > the last couple of weeks. In retrospect, what we should have done was > just > dump them in some existing place in CVS and be done with it, but we > thought > that making them more visible was important. The idea was that by > building > a separate component for them, they would both be easy to find and, > when we > did get the e4 effort rolling, they would be easy to move to another > home > (assuming that made sense). > > Obviously, we misjudged the implications of the proposal that > went > out. If I had know that it was going to have the impact that it did I > would > have spent more time wordsmithing it when Steve showed it to me. I > apologize for the confusion that it caused. [Heck, when I went back and > re-read it, *I* thought it was bogus.] > > I do believe that there will need to be a *new* shared area to > work, > once e4 actually starts to happen. My current theory is that the best > place > for that would be as a new incubator project unto itself, under the > Eclipse > Project, with the initial committer list being *everyone* who wants to > get > involved. I've started putting together a proposal for the creation of > such > a project, but in any case, that's not going to happen until after > EclipseCON and I'm happy to discuss other suggestions. > > McQ. > > > > > "Schaefer, Doug" > <Doug.Schaefer@wi > ndriver.com> > To > Sent by: "eclipse.org-architecture- > council" > eclipse.org-archi <eclipse.org-architecture- > council@e > tecture-council-b clipse.org> > ounces@xxxxxxxxxx > cc > g > > Subject > RE: > 03/06/08 21:12 [eclipse.org-architecture- > council] > Eclipse 4.0 (was Eclipse > ProjectAnnouncement and Project > Please respond to Review Schedule) > "eclipse.org-arch > itecture-council" > <eclipse.org-arch > itecture-council@ > eclipse.org> > > > > > > > Thanks, Jochen. Communication about this is critical. Unfortunately you > even started this e-mail by calling "e4" the next version of the > Eclipse > platform and I'm still stuck that "e4" is the prototype you are > proposing. I'm sure we all have different visions of what the next > major > version of Eclipse needs to be and I look forward to participating in > the process that ensures as many of those needs are met as possible. > > Doug S. > > -----Original Message----- > From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of Jochen Krause > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:19 PM > To: eclipse.org-architecture-council; eclipse.org-board; Mike Wilson; > Steve Northover > Subject: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse 4.0 (was Eclipse > ProjectAnnouncement and Project Review Schedule) > > Dear Board and Architecture Council members, > > I would like to clarify the situation around "e4", the next version of > the Eclipse platform, as there is a discussion going on about an "e4" > incubator project component. > > There has been a presentation to the Eclipse board about moving the > Eclipse platform to a new level for Eclipse 4.0 in December 2007. > Defining the scope of Eclipse 4.0 has also been one of the Eclipse 3.4 > plan item. > > The platform team has recently requested to create a new component > within the Eclipse incubator project to make their technology > evaluations available to the community. This has been perceived as a > "decision" about the next version of the platform by some readers - and > the wording of the component proposal can easily be interpreted this > way. But this is not at all the intention of this component. The > component is just about sharing code. > > The Eclipse platform and the RAP team have met to see if they could > work > together on e4. We saw our meeting as a part of the "pre-proposal- > phase" > of a new project. We have planned to join forces and will announce > shortly a proposal for an e4 incubator project, following the Eclipse > guidelines and process. The process has been established to make > projects transparent and help to engage with the community. > > And we are serious about it: Everybody is welcome to join, collaborate, > comment or critizise! There is a lot of work to do. We think that we > need to innovate in many areas to retain a leadership position for > Eclipse, and your know how is welcome. EclipseCon will be a great > opportunity to meet and discuss. > > It is really good news that some of the processes that many of us > perceive as a burden most of the time have a value. Receiving comments > and concerns about something that is only planned shows that our > processes apply to reality and that the Eclipse community is very > vital. > > Jochen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of Schaefer, Doug > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:40 PM > To: eclipse.org-planning-council > Cc: eclipse.org-architecture-council > Subject: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] RE: Eclipse > ProjectAnnouncementandProject Review Schedule > > You're right, the planning council list may not be the best place, > certainly all the councils and the board itself need to be interested > in > this. For the Arch council members, please check full e-mail thread on > the archives page started by Doug Gaff: > > > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse.org-planning- > council/mailli > st.html > > Getting back to the "Component" description: "The result was the design > of a new platform "e4", which will be the basis for Eclipse 4.0." By > new > platform, did you mean fork? My fear is that this is a likely scenario, > which would make the issues Doug Gaff brought up originally even more > important. If we're going to have two platforms, we'd better have the > processes in place to ensure they get the resourcing necessary to keep > them both alive. > > Doug Schaefer. > > -----Original Message----- > From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Boris Bokowski > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:11 PM > To: eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [eclipse.org-planning-council] > RE:[eclipse.org-membership-at-large] Eclipse Project > AnnouncementandProject Review Schedule > > > Whoa. I expected a flamewar on planeteclipse, but not here. > > Doug Gaff wrote: > > What is frustrating me about this project proposal > > You misread the announcement e-mail. It is not a project proposal, > merely a new *component* in the existing Eclipse Incubator project. I > admit that one can easily be confused with the other. > > We realized (admittedly, very late) that nobody from the SWT team had > commit rights in the existing Eclipse Incubator project. Creating a new > component in that Incubator project was the fastest way to create a > home > for experimental code that we will be demoing at EclipseCon, with write > access to everybody who has been involved so far - people at IBM, > Innoopract, and Code 9. > > The key words are "so far" - our hope is to find more people and > companies who would like to work with us on e4. > > Could we continue this discussion in a more open forum? The Planning > Council mailing list is not open to everybody; I had to ask nicely to > be > added as a subscriber. For example, could a new mailing list be > created, > e.g. eclipse-incubator-e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx? (I believe we asked for this > as part of the component creation process already.) > > Boris > > -- > Boris Bokowski > Eclipse Platform UI committer > IBM Rational Software, Ottawa Lab > > _______________________________________________ > eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list > eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council > _______________________________________________ > eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list > eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture- > counci > l > _______________________________________________ > eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list > eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture- > counci > l > > IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal > to > the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you > must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal. > _______________________________________________ > eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list > eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture- > council > > IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal > to > the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you > must > contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal. > > > _______________________________________________ > eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list > eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture- > council > > IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal > to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, > you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
Back to the top