[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic forPlanningCouncil Discussion


I agree completely that the community expects interoperability at least
with a collection of related projects packaged in EPP.  My comment is
that to meet this expectation requires an intentional plan with
dedicated testing resources.  

This requires a board-level strategic decision and a member company
staffing commitment, and I think you need to help make that a reality.  

Doug G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Ed Merks
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:19 PM
> To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; eclipse.org-planning-council
> Cc: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'eclipse.org-
> planning-council'
> Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic
> forPlanningCouncil Discussion
> 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
> 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>
>              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
> 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
> 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
> are
> expected to achieve.
> Doug's suggestion that perhaps EPP is part of the solution is worthy
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council