[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse4.0 (wasEclipseProjectAnnouncement and Project Review Schedule)
|
McQ,
You might have been responding to Doug Schaefer, not me. Regardless
(warning: gentle chastisement coming) the project lead should have a
blog on planet eclipse.
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 12:54 PM
> To: eclipse.org-architecture-council
> Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse4.0
> (wasEclipseProjectAnnouncement and Project Review Schedule)
>
> That's a great idea. I don't have a blog that feeds into planet
> eclipse. Do
> you want to post it (since it was a response to you)?
>
> McQ.
>
>
>
>
> "Gaff, Doug"
> <doug.gaff@windri
> ver.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:
> 03/07/08 12:46 [eclipse.org-architecture-
> council]
> Eclipse 4.0
> (wasEclipseProjectAnnouncement
> and
> Please respond to Project Review Schedule)
> "eclipse.org-arch
> itecture-council"
> <eclipse.org-arch
> itecture-council@
> eclipse.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I meant to say "put" not "out", but Freud clearly had a hand in that.
> :)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf
> > Of Gaff, Doug
> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:45 PM
> > To: eclipse.org-architecture-council
> > Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse 4.0
> > (wasEclipseProjectAnnouncement 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
