[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ide-dev] IDE working group [WAS: Improving Eclipse JDT - Ecosystem]
- From: Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:11:07 +0200
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
Am 15.10.2013 um 13:44 schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>:
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?
Maybe this needs rewording. My rational is the following: I don't want the IDEWG to get into competition with projects for development resources. If any member has its own agenda, with own work items he wants to contribute resources to, then I'd say he can go straight to the projects and let his developers contribute patches/gain committership. He doesn't need the WG for that. That's the project development model we have today.
The primary goal of the IDEWG (IMHO) should be funding the development of the Eclipse IDE. Ideally, that can be done by generating enough funding so that the IDEWG can pay a full time resources to work on IDE projects (eg. JDT, Platform, Egit, etc.). Simply put, those resources should not be driven by the interests of their employer but by the interests of the IDEWG.
> Overall, I find it weird to prefer $$ contributions instead of code contributions.
Of course, this model makes a fundamental assumptions: There are companies out there that want to support the development of the Eclipse IDE but can't/don't want to hire developers. I want to collect that money in the IDEWG and hire developers for that. Most likely, those developers can be found in existing member companies. The IDEWG must ensure that the collected money is well spent in the interest of the donator.
> 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.
Maybe here is the misunderstanding the IDEWG is not supposed to replace any planning/contribution practices in place by projects today. I think it's a separate channel to facilitate contributions by establishing an attractive sponsoring model around them. Major benefits of the IDEWG are that (a) there is actually a long-term roadmap and a vision for the IDE spanning across multiple projects, (b) interests aren't dominated by a single project and/or company and (c) it acts completely open and transparent as an Eclipse IWG.
Maybe that needs to be clearer pointed out?