Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ide-dev] Why we dropped Eclipse in favour of IntelliJ | Java Code Geeks



It has been a while since I have been on The Board, but if the current objections are all financial, then that illustrates a change in thinking and is a good sign.


Part of the reason that fundraising has been difficult is that it is difficult to show value of EF membership. This can be remedied if EF has developers on payroll. Not only would membership give you a vote in setting the direction for these developers, but there could be other benefits. Say annual points that the member can spend to ensure that specific problems affecting them are addressed.


We could also be doing more to explore fundraising from end users… How about “sponsor a bug” that’s integrated directly into bugzilla? The funds are held in an escrow until the solution is delivered. EF or ecosystem developers can fix the issue. If an ecosystem developer fixes the issue, EF takes a cut for facilitating the transaction.


- Konstantin



From: ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Arthorne
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 11:06 AM
To: Discussions about the IDE
Subject: Re: [ide-dev] Why we dropped Eclipse in favour of IntelliJ | Java Code Geeks


> From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> We already have a system for organizing interested parties around Eclipse,
> pooling resources, etc., but we refuse to let The Foundation hire actual
> developers, believing (incorrectly) that a diverse ecosystem is always
> better.

This has been discussed in depth within the Eclipse Board, and at least in the last two years I have not heard that argument used against the idea. There is a brief summary of one such instance at [1]. The main sticking point on this idea has been finding a stable source of funding for it. Developers are expensive, and the Foundation in its current form doesn't have the long term financial backing to fund development. I would love to hear anyone's ideas on this (either in public or private), and as a committer representative on the Board I would be happy to bring ideas forward there.



Back to the top