[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ide-dev] IDE working group [WAS: Improving Eclipse JDT - Ecosystem]
- From: Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:44:35 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Thread-index: 4+orKL1an7qingsiNnAKdPoUZwdMbQ==
- Thread-topic: IDE working group [WAS: Improving Eclipse JDT - Ecosystem]
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gunnar Wagenknecht" <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Discussions about the IDE" <ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 1:01:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [ide-dev] IDE working group [WAS: Improving Eclipse JDT - Ecosystem]
> Am 14.10.2013 um 21:15 schrieb Mike Milinkovich
> > Just a suggestion - rather than continuing to go around in circles on these
> > topics, how about we spend some time focusing on actually creating an IDE
> > working group? Which companies are interested in getting involved? Who can
> > contribute resources (people or money)? Who can help write the charter,
> > and get involved in governance?
> I offered my help and I'm willing to continue. I think the major item will be
> to reach agreement on the working group model (funding, sponsoring
> development, etc).
> This is just something up for discussion. I put it together after reading
> through other IWG and based on recommendations to ensure funding upfront.
> Please provide feedback here. I'll be in Ludwigsburg but I don't know if
> all parties will be represented there. Martin Lippert is organizing a BoF
> about the Eclipse IDE. I propose to also meet there for some more
I'll be there too and hope that we are gonna get lively discussion.
I have one comment about the proposal though:
"However, those members do not receive road map ranking points and must agree on allocating the development resources to work items as decided by the IDEWG."
This is gonna be a clean showstopper for joining such a working group as we usually contribute only development time and having someone else deciding what to do is something that doesn't make any sense from company POV and many wouldn't even dare to propose such a thing to their management ( I for one wouldn't). Maybe I misundertand it entirely?
Overall, I find it weird to prefer $$ contributions instead of code contributions. Another concern I have is that such approach would make it even harder for code contributions getting in if it's not on the IDEWG list as committers/reviewers would spend their time on this list and that's the weakest point.
Red Hat Eclipse team
> Gunnar Wagenknecht
> ide-dev mailing list