|Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning Council Discussion|
Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
Doug, (and everyone)
I think it would poison the community to have a two-level train. I think we would quickly see different requirements and EMO treatment (and member company support) for the 'corporate-run' projects relative to all the other projects...those led by smaller companies and/or independents. Seems to me this would eventually lead to inequities that many committers would consider unacceptable for a merit-and-value-based community.
A "meet all the requirements" level (the gold medal) and a "simultaneously release" level (the silver medal)? Maybe if the packages and the main update site contained the gold seal projects, but that the silver projects were also (if there was time to review the IP) available at the same time?
It seems to me like this sort of classification would be inherently detrimental to 'silver medal' projects and differential to 'gold medal' projects. That is, it may say nothing about their usefulness, and/or value to be labeled as 'silver', but just the labeling by the membership and foundation will lead to end-user biases...with lower adoption, tougher distribution, etc., etc.
It does seem to me that if the Board wants to mandate that the projects have to do more/other in terms of integration/testing, etc for the release train...and that the EMO should/must police/enforce the new rules...that there should be some recognition that this implies some support from the membership to do the work involved. There are many ways that I can think of to do this (contributing integration testing resources, allowing existing committers to work on related projects, etc., etc). Unfunded mandates don't really work IMHO...either for the committer community or for the EMO.
Back to the top