> But you are certainly right, and I'm not sure a "PMC" is the right thing
> the reasons you mention. It would certainly be abnormal. But I also don't
> it's a working group which appears to be more of an industry consortium
> I may be wrong.
> Basically what I'm looking for is a group to oversee the Eclipse IDE
> help influence and guide contributors, much as commercial IDE teams do,
> except without the reporting structure. Maybe more like Valve manages, or
> manages, it's teams.
> The best outcome is that this group becomes the first point of contact,
> who are users of the Eclipse IDE who want to contribute but don't really
> about Eclipse's project structure, they just want a good IDE. We could
> them, help make sure they're heard and accepted, stuff like that.
> And, no it's not a slam against the Eclipse PMC. I fully hope that they
> participate in this group as well, especially since I'm hoping they're a
> beneficiary. Most of the issues reported by IDE users will require changes
> Platform. But this grows beyond that, to consistency between language
> as an example, or managing toolbar and menu clutter when you have multiple
> projects installed.
> Sounds like I'm brainstorming here, and I certainly am. But having such a
> would give a home to like minded individuals to work towards common goals
> bigger than the projects today. Maybe it's not the Tools PMC, but
> be a big part of it given the projects we represent.
I have thought about this several times since Doug posted it. I do agree
with the top level assertion that we need to breath more energy into our IDE
efforts. I think that is pretty clear. But the Eclipse community has a
limited set of organizational structures: working groups, PMCs, projects,
and the Councils. So if such a group was to come into being, how would it be
organized? It seems like what Doug envisages is a cross-cutting concern that
bridges existing projects and PMCs, and perhaps even the Planning Council.
My suggestion at the moment is that a working group would be the best way to
go. Working groups can be made up of any group of members (and committers
are members!) who want to work together on something. We talk a lot about
the bigger, organizationally-focused ones at the moment, but in the past
we've had any number of working groups assembled around various topics.
But regardless of the organizational structure, defining the goals, scope
and participation of such a group will be a significant effort. As will
getting the buy-in and active support of the various stakeholders in the
existing projects. That seems to me to be the hard part.
P.S. I have no idea what "Valve" is.