[mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Lewis
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007
[eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning Council
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
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.
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'?