[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse 4.0 (was EclipseProjectAnnouncement and Project Review Schedule)
|
Hi Mike,
Care to out this on planet eclipse? I think the community at large will
want to read it.
Doug G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Mike Wilson
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:36 PM
> To: eclipse.org-architecture-council
> Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse 4.0 (was
> EclipseProjectAnnouncement and Project Review Schedule)
>
> Doug,
> I *know* that we're all trying to do the right thing here.
> Really. I
> also know that we *all* believe that the level of communication and
> community participation that we are striving for in this is orders of
> magnitude more than what you have seen from the platform team in the
> past.
>
> So, like everyone who is learning a new way to work, what we
> absolutely need from the community is positive re-inforcement when we
> get
> things right, and *gentle* <g> chastisement when we mess up. Your
> message
> below is perfect, in fact, since it simply points out that the way e4
> has
> been talked about so far has confused things more than it has helped.
> I'll
> make another attempt at clearing that up in a sec (and I'm sure you'll
> tell
> me if I fail), but I want to make one other point first.
>
> I care deeply about Eclipse. I have been fighting for its
success
> since day zero. When I look at Eclipse.org today, I am truly humbled
by
> the
> sheer magnitude of the successes we (all) have built, and I really do
> GET
> IT that it is the community that has generated that success. So I'm
> going
> to be completely open here: I am _royally_pissed_ that something so
> critical to all our successes (i.e. the Eclipse SDK) is being built by
> a
> very small team, most of whom come from one company. There are exactly
> two
> things that I believe are threatening the continued success of Eclipse
> right now:
>
> - lack of a diverse, growing committer community on the SDK
>
> - a codebase that is so constrained by history that it can't
> respond
> to a rapidly changing computing environment
>
> Addressing those two things is *exactly* why the e4 effort was
started.
> No
> hidden agendas. No extra direction from IBM to solve some new business
> problem. Nothing else. So what it all comes down to is this: If
someone
> sees us doing something that doesn't look like it matches one of those
> goals, absolutely speak up! But, for God's sake, give us the benefit
of
> a
> doubt. We will make mistakes, but they will be honest ones. For my
> part, I
> personally commit to making e4 be the kind of community driven project
> we
> all want.
>
> Anyway, I've ranted enough -- let me get back to your post...
>
> The only code that exists that is related to e4, is a couple of
> cool(ish) demos (neither of which is called "e4") that we built to
help
> us
> figure out whether some ideas we had about new directions were
valuable
> or
> not -- As Steve says, "We think with our fingers". I'd been planning
to
> show that code at EclipseCON, because I also believe that demos speak
> louder than powerpoint, but we really only had them in publishable
> shape in
> the last couple of weeks. In retrospect, what we should have done was
> just
> dump them in some existing place in CVS and be done with it, but we
> thought
> that making them more visible was important. The idea was that by
> building
> a separate component for them, they would both be easy to find and,
> when we
> did get the e4 effort rolling, they would be easy to move to another
> home
> (assuming that made sense).
>
> Obviously, we misjudged the implications of the proposal that
> went
> out. If I had know that it was going to have the impact that it did I
> would
> have spent more time wordsmithing it when Steve showed it to me. I
> apologize for the confusion that it caused. [Heck, when I went back
and
> re-read it, *I* thought it was bogus.]
>
> I do believe that there will need to be a *new* shared area to
> work,
> once e4 actually starts to happen. My current theory is that the best
> place
> for that would be as a new incubator project unto itself, under the
> Eclipse
> Project, with the initial committer list being *everyone* who wants to
> get
> involved. I've started putting together a proposal for the creation of
> such
> a project, but in any case, that's not going to happen until after
> EclipseCON and I'm happy to discuss other suggestions.
>
> McQ.
>
>
>
>
> "Schaefer, Doug"
> <Doug.Schaefer@wi
> ndriver.com>
> To
> Sent by: "eclipse.org-architecture-
> council"
> eclipse.org-archi <eclipse.org-architecture-
> council@e
> tecture-council-b clipse.org>
> ounces@xxxxxxxxxx
> cc
> g
>
> Subject
> RE:
> 03/06/08 21:12 [eclipse.org-architecture-
> council]
> Eclipse 4.0 (was Eclipse
> ProjectAnnouncement and Project
> Please respond to Review Schedule)
> "eclipse.org-arch
> itecture-council"
> <eclipse.org-arch
> itecture-council@
> eclipse.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Jochen. Communication about this is critical. Unfortunately
you
> even started this e-mail by calling "e4" the next version of the
> Eclipse
> platform and I'm still stuck that "e4" is the prototype you are
> proposing. I'm sure we all have different visions of what the next
> major
> version of Eclipse needs to be and I look forward to participating in
> the process that ensures as many of those needs are met as possible.
>
> Doug S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Jochen Krause
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:19 PM
> To: eclipse.org-architecture-council; eclipse.org-board; Mike Wilson;
> Steve Northover
> Subject: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse 4.0 (was Eclipse
> ProjectAnnouncement and Project Review Schedule)
>
> Dear Board and Architecture Council members,
>
> I would like to clarify the situation around "e4", the next version of
> the Eclipse platform, as there is a discussion going on about an "e4"
> incubator project component.
>
> There has been a presentation to the Eclipse board about moving the
> Eclipse platform to a new level for Eclipse 4.0 in December 2007.
> Defining the scope of Eclipse 4.0 has also been one of the Eclipse 3.4
> plan item.
>
> The platform team has recently requested to create a new component
> within the Eclipse incubator project to make their technology
> evaluations available to the community. This has been perceived as a
> "decision" about the next version of the platform by some readers -
and
> the wording of the component proposal can easily be interpreted this
> way. But this is not at all the intention of this component. The
> component is just about sharing code.
>
> The Eclipse platform and the RAP team have met to see if they could
> work
> together on e4. We saw our meeting as a part of the "pre-proposal-
> phase"
> of a new project. We have planned to join forces and will announce
> shortly a proposal for an e4 incubator project, following the Eclipse
> guidelines and process. The process has been established to make
> projects transparent and help to engage with the community.
>
> And we are serious about it: Everybody is welcome to join,
collaborate,
> comment or critizise! There is a lot of work to do. We think that we
> need to innovate in many areas to retain a leadership position for
> Eclipse, and your know how is welcome. EclipseCon will be a great
> opportunity to meet and discuss.
>
> It is really good news that some of the processes that many of us
> perceive as a burden most of the time have a value. Receiving comments
> and concerns about something that is only planned shows that our
> processes apply to reality and that the Eclipse community is very
> vital.
>
> Jochen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Schaefer, Doug
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:40 PM
> To: eclipse.org-planning-council
> Cc: eclipse.org-architecture-council
> Subject: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] RE: Eclipse
> ProjectAnnouncementandProject Review Schedule
>
> You're right, the planning council list may not be the best place,
> certainly all the councils and the board itself need to be interested
> in
> this. For the Arch council members, please check full e-mail thread on
> the archives page started by Doug Gaff:
>
>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse.org-planning-
> council/mailli
> st.html
>
> Getting back to the "Component" description: "The result was the
design
> of a new platform "e4", which will be the basis for Eclipse 4.0." By
> new
> platform, did you mean fork? My fear is that this is a likely
scenario,
> which would make the issues Doug Gaff brought up originally even more
> important. If we're going to have two platforms, we'd better have the
> processes in place to ensure they get the resourcing necessary to keep
> them both alive.
>
> Doug Schaefer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Boris Bokowski
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:11 PM
> To: eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [eclipse.org-planning-council]
> RE:[eclipse.org-membership-at-large] Eclipse Project
> AnnouncementandProject Review Schedule
>
>
> Whoa. I expected a flamewar on planeteclipse, but not here.
>
> Doug Gaff wrote:
> > What is frustrating me about this project proposal
>
> You misread the announcement e-mail. It is not a project proposal,
> merely a new *component* in the existing Eclipse Incubator project. I
> admit that one can easily be confused with the other.
>
> We realized (admittedly, very late) that nobody from the SWT team had
> commit rights in the existing Eclipse Incubator project. Creating a
new
> component in that Incubator project was the fastest way to create a
> home
> for experimental code that we will be demoing at EclipseCon, with
write
> access to everybody who has been involved so far - people at IBM,
> Innoopract, and Code 9.
>
> The key words are "so far" - our hope is to find more people and
> companies who would like to work with us on e4.
>
> Could we continue this discussion in a more open forum? The Planning
> Council mailing list is not open to everybody; I had to ask nicely to
> be
> added as a subscriber. For example, could a new mailing list be
> created,
> e.g. eclipse-incubator-e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx? (I believe we asked for
this
> as part of the component creation process already.)
>
> Boris
>
> --
> Boris Bokowski
> Eclipse Platform UI committer
> IBM Rational Software, Ottawa Lab
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-
> counci
> l
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-
> counci
> l
>
> IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal
> to
> the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you
> must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-
> council
>
> IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal
> to
> the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you
> must
> contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-
> council
>
> IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal
> to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list,
> you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
