Responsibility to decide which Eclipse IDE packages are
distributed as official "Eclipse IDE" releases (e.g., the packages
listed on the
Eclipse IDE packages download page or
are installable via the installer) rests with the Eclipse Foundation.
That is, the Eclipse Foundation has (and has always had)
responsibility to ensure that the content being distributed as official
"Eclipse IDE" releases meets a well-defined standard.
The
standard is set by the participation rules of the simultaneous release
and following the practices established for the simultaneous release,
are in our opinion, the best means of mitigating risk.
In order for a package to be listed as an official "Eclipse IDE" release, displayed on "package" download pages and included in the installer, these rules must be followed:
All features to the package must come through the simultaneous release.
"""
That resulted in the Corrosion package being removed from download page.
While I don't really mind the actual decisions on that matter, it seems like there is some inconsistency here about this particular item. People on this mailing-list who care strongly about that part in their decision or strategy towards the WG (if any, as it's not a big deal nor much a criterion of success in the end IMO) should probably request some clarification to find which one of the statement between call vs mailing-list is the current state of things.