Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning Counci

[Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott,

I think we need to address all these needs.  It's just not clear that a one
size fits all train does the job any better than a small tent makes a good
t-shirt just because it "fits" everyone.    We can't just live in an
idealistic world where all projects are equal because it's just not
reality.  (I can't believe I'm arguing against idealism, but it seems
necessary.)  I think Doug's idea has merit.  I think there need to be folks
who take responsibilities for the packages.  That takes dedication and
resource.   It seems to me that those who are so dedicated and who cough up
the resource will be in the position to define what's in and what's not...


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




                                                                       
             Scott Lewis                                               
             <slewis@composent                                         
             .com>                                                      To
             Sent by:                  "eclipse.org-planning-council"  
             eclipse.org-plann         <eclipse.org-planning-council@eclip
             ing-council-bounc         se.org>                         
             es@xxxxxxxxxxx                                             cc
                                                                       
                                                                   Subject
             11/02/2007 02:29          Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council]
             PM                        A suggested topic for Planning  
                                       Council Discussion              
                                                                       
             Please respond to                                         
             "eclipse.org-plan                                         
               ning-council"                                           
             <eclipse.org-plan                                         
             ning-council@ecli                                         
                 pse.org>                                              
                                                                       
                                                                       




Hi Doug,

Doug Schaefer wrote:
      The point is to raise the quality perception of Eclipse in the
      marketplace, i.e., beat NetBeans (and for my community, be as good as
      Visual Studio). Nothing changes to the train and its current
      operation. This is more an addition for those projects who want and
      need to work at addressing these issues.



I understand this point.  But that's not the only purpose/strategic goal
for EF projects (to beat NetBeans/Visual Studio).  Other projects have
other needs...like further distribution/popularization, emerging/new
technical areas for tooling, enabling RCP apps, etc.  I don't think these
are inherently any less important to the community as a whole (e.g.
committer community, user community, etc).


      The process for managing these products needs to be open just like
      everything else in Eclipse.



I agree.

      But depending on what we?re trying to achieve strategically, some
      components would end up not making the cut, just like in the ?real?
      world (been there, done that, i.e. been cut, its just part of doing
      business).



But the last I checked, EF wasn't a business.   So who decides who doesn't
'make the cut'?

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