Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse 4.0 (wasEclipseProjectAnnouncement and Project Review Schedule)

That's a great idea. I don't have a blog that feeds into planet eclipse. Do
you want to post it (since it was a response to you)?

McQ.



                                                                           
             "Gaff, Doug"                                                  
             <doug.gaff@windri                                             
             ver.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:                                 
             03/07/08 12:46            [eclipse.org-architecture-council]  
                                       Eclipse 4.0                         
                                       (wasEclipseProjectAnnouncement and  
             Please respond to         Project Review Schedule)            
             "eclipse.org-arch                                             
             itecture-council"                                             
             <eclipse.org-arch                                             
             itecture-council@                                             
               eclipse.org>                                                
                                                                           
                                                                           




I meant to say "put" not "out", but Freud clearly had a hand in that. :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Gaff, Doug
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:45 PM
> To: eclipse.org-architecture-council
> Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse 4.0
> (wasEclipseProjectAnnouncement 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.




Back to the top