> If the member agrees to pay for a new platform developer then the path to committership should not be as hard as it is now for newcomers.
Yeah… That’s pretty much a non starter…
From: ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wim Jongman
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:27 AM
To: Discussions about the IDE
Subject: Re: [ide-dev] IDE working group [WAS: Improving Eclipse JDT - Ecosystem]
I also think Gunnar pointed out some important key points:
Every committer has to earn his wings by contributing to the project in a meaningful way. Even a developer financed by a member of the WG still has to get acceptance of the team he is contributing to. I don't see any difference of a committer coming from, say, Redhat contributing to P2, Platform or JDT and a developer payed by a member of the WG.
If the member agrees to pay for a new platform developer then the path to committership should not be as hard as it is now for newcomers. This is something that the WG could define as one of its main tasks.
Generally, we should not think of members of the potential IDEWG as sugar daddies. The WG is a mechanism build a platform for companies to give voice to their needs and pain points and finding people that have the resources to fix them.
I used the term "sugar daddy" in reply to Doug's comment about dictatorship. I just wanted to emphasize that committers, or those who pay them, have the final say in what get's implemented. Finding the members that are willing to commit development time to the commons should be another main task of the WG.