[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning Council Discussion
|
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed
> Merks
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:44 PM
>
> Scott,
>
> I think we need to address all these needs. It's just not clear that a
> one
> size fits all train does the job any better than a small tent makes a good
> t-shirt just because it "fits" everyone. We can't just live in an
> idealistic world where all projects are equal because it's just not
> reality. (I can't believe I'm arguing against idealism, but it seems
> necessary.) I think Doug's idea has merit. I think there need to be
> folks
> who take responsibilities for the packages. That takes dedication and
> resource. It seems to me that those who are so dedicated and who cough
> up
> the resource will be in the position to define what's in and what's not...
I'm not sure that would give the results we need. I think the resources
making the product decisions have to represent the good of the membership as
a whole. I worry about the natural biases that employees have to their
employers (it's certainly career limiting if you don't have such a bias).
No I think this would have to be someone responsible to the whole board and
membership. Hey, like EMO employees are ;)
Doug
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott Lewis
> <slewis@composent
> .com> To
> Sent by: "eclipse.org-planning-council"
> eclipse.org-plann <eclipse.org-planning-council@eclip
> ing-council-bounc se.org>
> es@xxxxxxxxxxx cc
>
> Subject
> 11/02/2007 02:29 Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council]
> PM A suggested topic for Planning
> Council Discussion
>
> Please respond to
> "eclipse.org-plan
> ning-council"
> <eclipse.org-plan
> ning-council@ecli
> pse.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Doug Schaefer wrote:
> The point is to raise the quality perception of Eclipse in the
> marketplace, i.e., beat NetBeans (and for my community, be as good
> as
> Visual Studio). Nothing changes to the train and its current
> operation. This is more an addition for those projects who want and
> need to work at addressing these issues.
>
>
>
> I understand this point. But that's not the only purpose/strategic goal
> for EF projects (to beat NetBeans/Visual Studio). Other projects have
> other needs...like further distribution/popularization, emerging/new
> technical areas for tooling, enabling RCP apps, etc. I don't think these
> are inherently any less important to the community as a whole (e.g.
> committer community, user community, etc).
>
>
> The process for managing these products needs to be open just like
> everything else in Eclipse.
>
>
>
> I agree.
>
> But depending on what we?re trying to achieve strategically, some
> components would end up not making the cut, just like in the ?real?
> world (been there, done that, i.e. been cut, its just part of doing
> business).
>
>
>
> But the last I checked, EF wasn't a business. So who decides who doesn't
> 'make the cut'?
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
