|[eclipse.org-planning-council] Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Three points about this discussion|
Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
Scott,Ah, so then you are saying that the Galileo user community is the community you want to attract - good, because then you'll want to conform to those must-do items that the Galileo user community wants.
Yes, of course...and that's why (for my project at least) we have been/are conforming to the must-do (and many most of the should do) items. But I would question the assumption that what the Galileo user community wants is the *additional/new* must do rules being proposed. Perhaps some in the community, but I don't see any requests at the ECF level (i.e. in newsgroups, mailing lists, etc) for ECF's plan.xml (even though there), while I see a good deal of requests of the nature: "I didn't know there was a project like this at EF?...do you all have X?" (and when answer is 'yes'...)..."what do I have to do to get it?"
And the Planning Council has/is debating what those are, hence the must-do and should-do items.
Good. I think they should keep debating about the must-dos (and perhaps make the debate larger/involving more people).
Back to the top