On 01/28/2016 04:00 PM, Tyler Jewell
wrote:
Mickael:
I appreciate you taking the time to
say these thoughts.
I appreciate you taking time to answer those ;)
First of all, let me just clarify that this is not a big affair, and
that my concern only focus on the exact sentence "Che as an
alternative to IntelliJ". I believe the other pieces of the article
are good, that Che's vision and strategy is good, that Che is
probably going to get a good market share, Che brings some attention
on the Eclipse community... Che is definitely a positive thing for
the Eclipse ecosystem, and I'm not judging that.
I also understand that communicating about Che can be a tricky thing
when one of its main competitors (Eclipse IDE) is so closely related
;)
First, all of the words that are
published in the Eclipse Foundation newsletter are the words
of the author, not of the Foundation itself. So you can
squarely put any concerns on specific language towards me as
the Eclipse Che project lead. Though given that it is
branded as an Eclipse newsletter, it is likely that an
anonymous reader will infer that the words are endorsed and
reflective of the views of the Eclipse Foundation. So we
have a scenario where a project leader - myself - is using
strong language, and getting tacit, implied support for a
broader organization based upon the nature of how it is
published. But for the most part, while the foundation
could be somewhat complicit, let's go ahead and assume that
any concerns that were generated by the article can be
addressed with me, both as a project leader, author, and
board member.
Yes, and when I read it,
I understand it's your words. But most readers don't know that,
and some have really seen that as an official statement from the
Eclipse Foundation.
Third, this article is intended to do good
for all Eclipse projects, especially the IDE. And it actually
gathered the Eclipse IDE team a lot of amazingly good market
will.
I'm failing to understand what concretely that means. I probably
didn't look at the right comments. The one I saw that started the
discussion was something like "Eclipse Che as an alternative to
IntelliJ shows how the Eclipse IDE is doomed". I don't call it a
good market will.
However, I may have looked only at the bad ones and missed the ones
that have produced a good impact on the image of Eclipse IDE.
So let's not be too upset about
Che's success
Once again (I really want it to be clear), I'm not and I won't be
upset about Che's success. It's only one sentence that I believe
gave to the audience bad signals about the Eclipse IDE.
Cheers,
|