Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclips

[Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>]

BTW, here's a great article Ian Skerrett posted on twitter. Says a lot of
the things we've been saying:

stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2013/07/patterns-and-practices-for-open-sou
rce-software-success.html

Eclipse is even mentioned as a good example, but we've never really been
that good at: "Out of this user base, attract developers". And that's
where I think we can grow.

Doug.

On 13-07-17 4:24 PM, "Doug Schaefer" <dschaefer@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>The secret is simple. Manage the project differently, if barely at all.
>Let the contributors manage it. Be open, really open.
>
>And automate as much as you can so you aren't relying on individuals so
>much. Hell, I've managed to do that with our commercial product builds.
>(Jenkins, uh, I mean Hudson/Tycho rule!).
>
>On 13-07-17 4:13 PM, "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> I'm not sure why we're always expecting companies to drop bus loads of
>>> developers into projects when we have a pretty healthy individual
>>>contributor
>>> community already at Eclipse. In fact, over half of CDT contributions
>>>of late are
>>> coming from individuals, not companies. And it's really coming from
>>>users who
>>> have the skills to contribute back and not only make their lives
>>>better, but others
>>> as well, and get rewarded by seeing their work on the big stage.
>>
>>That is really good news for CDT. I wish we had a lot more projects that
>>were in your position. But the flip side is that the platform is not in
>>that position today. Others will have to speak to what it will take to
>>get to a position as enviable as CDT's.
>>
>>In addition, the key resources that we have supporting the simultaneous
>>release process like David and Markus are, in fact, supported by member
>>companies.  And as far as I know, they are tapped out. I do not think
>>that we can realistically ask them to do more. And if we want them to do
>>something different, I for one would prefer to hear from them what they
>>would like to change. Maybe I'm wrong, and they would be perfectly happy
>>to push out two release trains a year (for example).
>>
>>> So really, the changes I'm talking about, more frequent release cycles,
>>>creating a
>>> list of features and bugs we'd like fixed, is aimed at attracting more
>>>individuals to
>>> the party. And I'm pretty sure there are some companies who would like
>>>to see
>>> the same. Create the buzz and companies may take another look.
>>
>>We are certainly agreed about the need to attract more contributors of
>>all types. The Eclipse Foundation has also been pushing this agenda for
>>the last couple of years. Embracing git, implementing CBI, project
>>hosting at GitHub, and switching to CLAs are all examples of things that
>>we did specifically to help reduce barriers to contribution.
>>
>>I agree that we need to increase the pace of innovation. My point is that
>>I don't see a realistic discussion on this thread about resourcing the
>>changes that we would all like to see. I would love to be wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>>cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
>_______________________________________________
>cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev