RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning Counci

[Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>]

I’m not sure the Board would agree that this isn’t about business. At the end of the day the Board decides. But I assume they’d have someone doing the leg work of setting things up and laying out the decisions.

 

Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com

---

From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Lewis
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:30 PM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for Planning Council Discussion

 

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