RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for PlanningCouncil

[Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

I think you are arguing reasonably that just having a coordinated free for
all, with no real integration and no significant quality assurance might
well be just a road paved with good intentions that leads straight to hell.
Certainly Scott's notion of having a level playing field, i.e., the
principle that all the projects are treated fairly and equally is extremely
important too.  But all the projects aren't actually equal and certainly
they aren't all of equal quality nor, to be really blunt, are they all
equally important in the eyes of the consumers.  And as you say, the
consumer is really the target for whom we produce these results and what
they expect is important.  Of course we have many different consumers and I
think a release train where all the projects produce synchronized results
is important to one class of users and to the commercial consumers.  But I
totally agree that many if not most consumers expect a product quality
integrated result and will be disappointed when that's not what's actually
produced.

So while a two tiered system might rub some the wrong way, how else is
merit and quality recognized, or the lack of it reflected in a project's
status, than in some kind of tiered system?  I think Doug's suggestion is a
particularly good one.   Perhaps if we take the EPP packaging one step
further and define clear owners for the packages, folks who will do quality
assurance and set standards for what's in the package and who will take
pride in producing a high quality result we can focus the issue away from
just who's on the train and who's not, and focus instead on the issue you
are outlining.  I.e., how do we make sure that the user perception is that
part of what Ganymede produces isn't just a mishmash of projects, but also
a set of high quality product-like offerings...


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 313)




                                                                           
             "Mike                                                         
             Milinkovich"                                                  
             <mike.milinkovich                                          To 
             @eclipse.org>             "'eclipse.org-planning-council'"    
             Sent by:                  <eclipse.org-planning-council@eclip 
             eclipse.org-plann         se.org>                             
             ing-council-bounc                                          cc 
             es@xxxxxxxxxxx                                                
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council]  
             11/02/2007 01:22          A suggested topic for               
             PM                        PlanningCouncil Discussion          
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
             mike.milinkovich@                                             
               eclipse.org;                                                
             Please respond to                                             
             "eclipse.org-plan                                             
               ning-council"                                               
             <eclipse.org-plan                                             
             ning-council@ecli                                             
                 pse.org>                                                  
                                                                           
                                                                           




I've been pondering this thread and wondering why this debate went off in
the direction that it did. I came to the conclusion that --- as in so many
things in life --- the root cause lies in a misunderstanding. Or a
different set of assumptions. Or a miscommunication. Whatever :-)

Our history of doing release trains is relatively short. But we at the EMO
believe that we have learned something over the past two years. And that
lesson is that it is impossible to change the perception of the community
on what the release trains mean. What I mean by that is that no matter how
many times we tell people (including journalists) that the release trains
are a bunch of projects which ship together, and that the main focus is on
enabling adopters, the broader community resonates back that it is a single
release and they expect things to work together. Or at least play nicely
together.

In addition, the functionality expectations of developers have been raised.
In 2001, JDT gave most Java developers what they needed. Now they're
looking for a much broader set of functionality as the entry point.

So my observation is that as of this moment the community and the planning
council have different ideas of what the annual release is. And IMHO the
community's opinion wins. At least in the sense that it defines what we are
expected to achieve.

Doug's suggestion that perhaps EPP is part of the solution is worthy of
further exploration. My gut tells me that is necessary but not sufficient.
EPP cannot solve all of the quality and integration issues on its own.

It should be a fun Planning Council meeting next week :-)

Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx


_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council