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.
Another thing I want to highlight, as a project lead on various IDE related projects, is that the Working Group is *not* a requirement *nor* a privilege for anyone to invest in particular development on such projects.
An organization that has interest in fixing one particular aspect of a project (performance, feature, icons...) can already do that by investing manpower onto the project or directly hiring contractors to work on the desired projects/items (the community has had a bunch of very skilled individual contributors that can be already hired as contractors for particular tasks). As expected by the Eclipse Developer Process, projects should welcome those changes according to the rules of meritocracy, independently of whether they come from direct contributions, or thought a contractor, from the Working Group, the Eclipse Foundation, some member or whoever else the same. From projects POV, Working Group is not a replacement for meritocracy. I feel it's important that people remind that as my reading of some the Q&As gave me the impression some people could build false expectations.
Cheers,
